[LeCompteSftware]

Just FYI, this section at the end about R6RS Scheme is a little confused: https://fset.common-lisp.dev/Modern-CL/Top_html/Scheme-_0028...

   Strings are immutable [in Scheme]. Functional point update operations are not provided, presumably out of time complexity concerns, but string-append and substring are provided, and there are functions to convert to and from lists of characters; I guess the idea is that fine-grained string construction will be done using lists and then converted. Amusingly, there’s string-copy, though it’s hard to see why one would ever use it.

Strings are actually mutable in R6RS. See https://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs-Z-H-14.html#node_s... - there is an imperative update-in-place function which mutates the argument. So of course string-copy really is useful, you might want to mutate a string and keep an unaltered copy. And the intent of string->list is to automatically let your list-processing code become string-processing code. It is way too strong to say "Functional point update operations are not provided, presumably out of time complexity concerns" - R6RS actively encourages functional operations on strings by calling string->list first, even though that's O(n) overhead.

The overall point you are making seems clearly correct: R6RS Scheme does not provide any "mostly functional" datatypes beyond basic s-expressions, so it would take a lot of work to develop Clojure/FSet-style tools. But it's strange to so badly misstate what strings in Scheme are like.

[shawn_w]

I mentioned the existence of`string-set!` a few days ago in the reddit post on this release of fset[1] (as well as some Racket inaccuracies). He might just not have gotten around to updating it.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Common_Lisp/comments/1sk2nsl/fset_v...

[ScottBurson]

Why is it too strong to say that functional point update operations on strings are not provided, when you seem to confirm that the supported way to manipulate strings functionally is to convert them to lists first?