[Scheme-reports] Formal Response #438: Inconsistency of sequence copying procedures
John Cowan 11 Oct 2012 21:03 UTC
This is a Formal Response to Formal Comment #438:
Inconsistency of sequence copying procedures
The WG voted to adopt this proposal in principle. In particular:
1) Vectors are now self-evaluating.
2) The functional procedures {list,string,bytevector}-copy are provided,
with a required source argument, and with optional start and end
arguments. The list-copy procedure does not allow optional arguments.
3) The substring procedure is retained for backward compatibility.
4) The mutating procedures {list,string,bytevector}-copy! are provided,
with required destination, destination index, and source arguments, and
with optional start and end arguments. No fill argument is provided.
There is no list-copy! procedure.
If you are dissatisfied with this Formal Response, please let us know.
Thank you for participating in the R7RS process.
--
John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports