[R6RS] mutability of pairs
Anton van Straaten
anton at appsolutions.com
Tue Jun 20 14:51:51 EDT 2006
dyb at cs.indiana.edu wrote:
> Should we also say we're considering requiring that cons's second argument
> be a list? Then list? is just (lambda (x) (or (null? x) (pair? x))) and we
> can get rid of even more cruft. It would make clear that one should use
> records instead of pairs for anything but actual lists of elements, which
> I think is basically where all this is heading.
I don't object to saying we're considering this.
As to the issue itself, it means that "pairs" would no longer be
general-purpose pairs - they would in fact be immutable lists. Off the
top of my head, I might prefer to see a new immutable list type be
introduced, than change the current meaning of pairs so drastically.
P.S. Re language about libraries for the status report, I've been
slightly delayed, but I'll email something by 3:30pm Eastern.
More information about the R6RS