In accordance with Will Clinger's posting, Alexey Radul and I are raising this issue for the WG1 to resolve after the plebiscite is complete. I document it now so that WG1 members can discuss it now.
Alexey writes: > - Do map and friends [pp.50-51] always return newly allocated results? > For example, it's not too hard to write an otherwise-valid > definition of map where > (let ((one '(1 6 1 8 0 3)) > (two '(1 4 1 4 2 1))) > (eqv? one (map (lambda (x y) x) one two))) > ==> #t > and one might even want that, to save space. There are of course > more complicated examples where the result of a map could share list > structure with the tail of one of its inputs, as long as the > procedure being mapped returned those elements unchanged. Currently, the draft just says "returns a list", "returns a string", and "returns a vector", without saying "newly allocated". I believe nothing needs to be added. Does any WG1 member disagree? Does any member of the Scheme community disagree? Silence gives consent. -- He played King Lear as though John Cowan <[email protected]> someone had played the ace. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Eugene Field _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
