From Newsgroup: comp.lang.scheme

Frode Vatvedt Fjeld wrote:

Scheme
(define vector-fill!
(lambda (v x)
(let ((n (vector-length v)))
(do ((i 0 (+ i 1)))
((= i n))
(vector-set! v i x)))))

Python
def vector_fill(v, x):
for i in range(len(v)):
v[i] = x

To me the Python code is easier to read, and I can't possibly fathom
how somebody could think the Scheme code is easier to read. It truly boggles my mind. [..]

The scheme example can only have been written by someone who is on the
outset determined to demonstrate that sexp-syntax is complicated. This
is how I'd write it in Common Lisp:

(defun vector-fill (v x)
(dotimes (i (length v))
(setf (aref v i) x)))

As you can see, it matches the python example quite closely.

Why would any human want to match Python?

Gauche Scheme

(vector-fill! vec 99)

(vector-map! (constantly 88) vec)


Multiply each element by 2:

(vector-map! (cut * 2 <>) vec)

Sum the elements in the vector.

(use scheme.vector)
(vector-fold + 0 vec)

Another way to sum.

(use gauche.sequence)
(fold + 0 vec)

Make a list containing the positive numbers in the vector.

(use gauche.sequence)
(filter positive? vec)

Find location of first negative number.

(use scheme.vector)
(vector-index negative? vec)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2