A few typos in the latest SRFI-44 drafts

[s***@public.gmane.org]

Hello!

procedure: *-get-left * [default]=> value
Returns an unspecified value from the given
collection. If the collection is empty, default is
returned if present, otherwise #f is returned.

Hmm, "Returns an unspecified value". I know what you mean. However,
that word, 'unspecified', immediately reminded me a R5RS phrase "the
return value of the set! expression is unspecified". It isn't the same
unspecified, is it? Perhaps a phrase "Returns a value from the given
collection. For a general collection, it is unspecified which of its
values is returned. Ordered collection specify that." might be more
suitable.

I agree.

procedure: dict? value => boolean
Returns a non-false value if the provided value is a flexible
sequence

You probably meant "dictionary" rather than a "flexible sequence".

Yep.

I also have a half-hearted suggestion about dictionaries.
collection-fold-left on dictionaries iterates on
values. collection-fold-keys-left iterates on keys. Somehow there
isn't anything that iterates on keys and the corresponding values. At
the first blush, keys+values seem to be a bit more useful than merely
values. Furthermore, it's usually quite easy for a collection to
obtain the corresponding key when iterating over values. OTH,
iterating on keys and using dict-get to get the corresponding value is
usually far less efficient. I thought that perhaps
collection-fold-left can pass to its fold-function not merely a value
but a pair (key . value). This is just a remark.

It could, but that might impede passing dictionaries as ordinary
collections to routines. Take for example a program which stores its
data in a dictionary in order to provide quick access using a key to a
single value, but wants to pass that dictionary as a blob of values to
some function that is written to accept any collection.

Passing keys+values to the proc in a collection-fold-keys-* should be
fine however.

CCing to the discussion list.

Thanks,
Scott