David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: >> Otherwise, this function looks good to me, but I'd prefer to give it a >> new name and move it into list.c, rather than extending SRFI-1's >> 'length+'.
It's not an "extension" of SRFI-1's length+: it just does the same as the SRFI-1 reference implementation. It is just a different choice of working with unspecified behavior than yours. >> Hmm, coming up with names is hard. Maybe 'length*'? > > Given what cons* (and use of id* in syntax rules) does, the name seems > inappropriate. length* would be a good name for > > (length* clist1 clist* ... ) > > returns the length of the shortest finite list in the given lists, #f > if there is none. Which would be actually a rather nice building > block to have for several srfi-1 functions and would basically not > make us need length+ at all in its implementation. And that's actually the core of the argument: do we really want to offer a "length+" that is at best marginally useful for srfi-1 itself? For a library design, that sounds a lot like "does not eat its own dog food". Are we really doing users a favor by filling in the "unspecified" corners of the srfi-1 in a manner not making for a coherent whole? -- David Kastrup
