On 2023-08-28 03:26 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > I don't feel strongly about this either way. String-pad is definitely a > precedent, but there is also the CL lexical syntax, which allows an > optional integer literal between # and * and makes it an error to write > #5*100100. (The last bit is used as the padding bit.)
Another way to think about Shiro's point is: "should the result of (bitvector-pad bit bvec k) always have length k?" -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]>
