Hello, I already changed my mind... :-)
[email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Indeed, if ‘vhash-assoc’ et al. are changed to return a vhash instead of > a pair, then we have all that’s needed to do that: [...] > Thus I’m planning to make that change. [The ‘vhash-fold-matches’ above > conses at each match whereas the attached one doesn’t, but that’s OK.] Thinking more about it, I think I’d rather keep ‘vhash-assoc’ & co. as they are, and add ‘vhash-assoc*’ & co., which would return a vhash. This is so that ‘vhash-assoc’ keeps the overhead minimal for the common pattern where only one value is associated with a key. Also, ‘vhash-assoc’ is a drop-in replacement for SRFI-1 ‘assoc’, which is probably worth keeping. Thanks, Ludo’.
