The R5RS has the following sequence to sequence conversion procedures: list->string, and string->list list->vector, and vector->list
The R7RS is adding bytevector sequences, but it does not add the conversion procedures: list->bytevector, and bytevector->list What is the rationale for this inconsistency? Moreover, the R7RS is adding only the first set of these conversion procedures: vector->string, and string->vector bytevector->string, and string->bytevector (not in R7RS) vector->bytevector, and bytevector->vector (not in R7RS) yet for consistency they should be added. Why is the conversion between vectors and strings priviledged by the standard? Personnaly, I think these conversion procedures should not be added to the standard because for consistency, any sequence types added by an implementation of Scheme (or future standard) would require N^2 conversion procedures. Only the conversions to and from lists should be specified, and a "sufficiently intelligent compiler" can handle compositions such as (list->string (vector->list v)) like the proposed (vector->string v), if performance is an issue. Marc _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
