Per Bothner scripsit: > To my thinking, there are few semantically-meaningful uses of fixed-size > mutable vectors or strings.
I agree about strings, but mutability allows very large vectors (particularly ones that act as backing store for multi-dimensional arrays) to be used even when their size is close to that of useful memory. > Regardless, copying a slice from one vector/string into another is > such a fundamental operation that it should be added, IMO, considering > that it's tedious to write if "by hand", and that a standard library > routine is likely to be much more efficient (especially for strings, > since that avoids the need for boxing+unboxing the characters). Many implementations use immediates for characters, however. > One could also argue that "character" operations don't really make > semantic sense in a Unicode world, and so string-set! has limited > usefulness. Thus string-copy and string-copy! are the actual > useful "primitive" operations. Good point about strings. Ticket # filed. > Well, I suspect vector-copy! has more uses that vector-fill! No doubt, but we are stuck with vector-fill!. > > The WG specifically voted in ballot 3 (#205) to keep bytevector-copy and > > bytevector-copy-partial separate. > > I think that was a mistake, in lieu of the prior art of SRFI-43. > I also think the shorter names are better regardless. /me shrugs. Democracy in action. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. --Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit" _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
