At Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:13:26 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > I see your point about "generator", and so I agree that we should > > use a different term. I'm not too happy with the term "producer", > > but I don't yet have a better suggestion.
For now, I've left the generator and producer support as it was --- no particular emphasis or support for stateful sequences, and so no particular need for terminology. > > I don't think that 0-arity procedures should be the only > > implementation of producers. [...] > > I like the lack of such identification -- it makes it easy to just use > something like (lambda () 1) as the producer equivalent of an infinite > stream of 1s. I never meant to suggest that a thunk couldn't be a producer --- only that producers might have representations other than thunks. Again, it's moot for now. > > I'm not convinced that `racket/sequence' is useless. Here's a list of > > the current functions (with the current names): I threw out `sequence-cons', `sequence-first', and `sequence-rest', and I kept the rest. The various functions are all unnecessary on some level, just like `map', `for-each', and `compose' are unnecessary on some level But the function forms and/or alternate names look handy for some contexts. The new `racket/stream' library provides stream versions of the functions, plus `stream-cons' (based on SRFI-41), `stream-empty?', `stream-first', and `stream-rest'. Meanwhile, `in-range' now produces a stream, the `for' variants support streams in a slightly more direct way, etc. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
