"Jörg F. Wittenberger" scripsit: > However when it comes to `fold` I'm not sure if it is better to follow > the srfi-1 argument order (combiner-initial-set) or the srfi-69 style > order (set-combiner-initial).
SRFI-1 rules, SRFI-69 (in this respect) drools. The in-progress SRFI 125 uses SRFI 1 order. > At one hand trying to be a "drop-in" for lists it would better not > change the argument order wrt. srfi-1. > > However the fold procedure from srfi-1 takes two arguments, the element > (for alists the key-value-pair) and the accumulated value. The fold > operation for "binding-set" is to be called with three arguments, key, > value and result-so-far. Just like srfi-69's hash-table-fold. So SRFI 1 and SRFI 69 agree here, if you think of key and value as the the way of specifying an association. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] 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" _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
