Hi,
"Julian Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, yeah, that's fine -- sorry, didn't realize that was the behavior
> of SCM_VALIDATE_LIST. Just as long as it doesn't segfault any more,
> I'm happy.
Actually, there are many places where `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST' is used where
it should be avoided. An example is SRFI-1's `member'. Try the
following:
(use-modules (srfi srfi-1)
(ice-9 time))
(define l (make-list 1000000 0))
(time (not (not (member (car l) l))))
;; ... versus...
(time (not (not (member 0 '(0)))))
Looking at SRFI-1 specifically, the spirit is apparently to phrase
things in a way that allows implementations to not actually check
whether arguments are proper lists when proper lists are expected (see,
e.g., [0, 1]).
Thanks,
Ludovic.
[0] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-1/mail-archive/msg00061.html
"[I]t's unlikely that any implementation would ever enforce the
proper-list typing of its list parameter."
[1] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-1/mail-archive/msg00054.html
