One argument array-for-each, array-every, and array-any?

[Gambiteer]

NumPy basically limits array broadcasting to pointwise operations, or array-map. I think that in a Scheme/Racket library without array comprehensions, one would need to implement broadcasting for arguments to array-fold-left and array-fold-right, too.

The argument processing of SRFI 231's array-for-each, array-every, and array-any is identical to the argument processing of array-map. Because SRFI 231's array-map always returns a generalized (non-strict) array, those "action" procedures can be restricted to have a single array argument without any change in behavior or performance.

I haven't yet committed such a change to my working repository

GitHub - gambiteer/srfi-231 at 231-bis

My question is: I the following too "un-Schemely"?

In Scheme/Racket the routines map, vector-map, every, any, etc. actually apply the procedure to the components of the arguments and return a result, i.e., they are "action" procedures. When array-map in math/array returns a non-strict array, as it does in all circumstances in SRFI 231, array-map just sets up operations to be executed later, relying on later "action" procedures to execute things.

If I change array-for-each, array-any, and array-every to take only a single array argument, that simplifies the implementation, the documentation, etc., with no change in performance or expressiveness, but will programming like the following examples in draft documentation seem too weird?

One can combine array-map with "action" procedures like array-for-each, array-any, and array-every to achieve the following:

(array-every (array-map = A B))         ;; are all elements of A and B =?
(array-any (array-map positive? A))     ;; is any element of A positive?
(array-for-each (array-map write-u8 A)) ;; write a byte array

So basically array-every, array-any, and array-for-each would just evaluate in order the elements of the single array argument, with different rules for when to stop and what to return.

Comments?