From: Peter Bex <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] alternative name for `find-files' Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 12:47:40 +0200
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:45:19AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: >> That's a hard one. find-files is the perfect name for this procedure :( >> Maybe DIRECTORY-FILTER, as it's like a (recursive) version of DIRECTORY >> but with a filtered result set? > > I did a quick tour of the other major Schemes and was horrified to see > how underpowered the bulk of them are; many schemes didn't even have > such a procedure! I found the following: Many thanks (to you and the others) for reviewing the possible option and making suggestions. I was about to implement `directory-fold', but in the end did something else: `find-files' is kept, got a new signature (using keywords instead of optionals) but still supports the old signature (which has been deprecated), unless the second argument (if provided) is not a keyword. It's a dirty, mean and tasteless hack. I just love it. (`directory-fold' is probably more suited for a compatibility extension) > Taylor Campbell also made a proposal that is equivalent to Chibi AFAICT: > http://mumble.net/~campbell/proposals/filesys.text I generally try to ignore proposals made by Mr. Campbell (that's not intended to demean Mr. Campbell (whom I regard as a very intelligent person, a ingenious Scheme hacker and a macrology god), but Mr. Campbell's proposals). cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
