I just got tripped up, again, trying to traverse a list with `first' and
`rest' in a `racket/base' file. `first' and `rest' are only available in
`racket' and `racket/list', but not in `racket/base'.
If we want to encourage use of `first' and `rest' over `car' and `cdr'
and of `racket/base' when
On 2012-12-13 12:44:38 -0500, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
Does this sound reasonable?
+1. While we're at it, might as well also put at least `empty` and
`empty?` in there too. These trip me up as well.
Cheers,
Asumu
_
Racket Developers list:
Throw cons? in with empty?, please.
Carl Eastlund
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On 2012-12-13 12:44:38 -0500, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
Does this sound reasonable?
+1. While we're at it, might as well also put at least `empty` and
`empty?` in
-1, since they are different from what some people would expect them
to do. -2 for the `empty', `cons?' etc aliases.
An hour and a half ago, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
I just got tripped up, again, trying to traverse a list with `first'
and `rest' in a `racket/base' file. `first' and `rest' are
If they do the wrong thing, we should fix them, not deprecate them. We're
not LISP, let's not promote car/cdr as the primary names for list
operations.
Carl Eastlund
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
-1, since they are different from what some people
I agree with Eli. first is not car and shouldn't be treated as it.
car : (Cons a b) - a
first : (List a) - a
I also agree with Carl that we should deprecate grandpa's names and
give nice names. I suggest fst and snd and pair
Jay
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu
Vincent's proposal wasn't let's treat car as first, his proposal was
let's export it in racket/base. If we don't like first/rest, we should
have a proposal to remove them from #lang racket... right? Otherwise,
let's put them in racket/base. They're very simple names for very, very
common
20 minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
If they do the wrong thing, we should fix them, not deprecate them.
I'm not saying that they should be deprecated.
We're not LISP, let's not promote car/cdr as the primary names for
list operations.
And I'm not suggesting that either. (In fact, in *C*L,
At Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:51:42 -0500,
Eli Barzilay wrote:
A few minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
I agree with Eli. first is not car and shouldn't be treated as it.
car : (Cons a b) - a
first : (List a) - a
Right -- it's a different type, and the `list?' check adds a cost.
I don't
9 matches
Mail list logo
