+1, and maybe also add a racket2 item to get rid of all of the
unnecessary functions? (I think that member/assoc/etc are better with
`eq?' than using memq/assq/etc.)
Two days ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> +1, do it.
>
> On May 31, 2013, at 7:40 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is it feasible to get `member` to have the same optional argument
> > behavior as `assoc`? That is, to have an equality predicate as the third
> > argument.
> >
> > I find myself writing the (imaginary) equivalent of things like:
> > (member id some-list free-identifier=?)
> >
> > and it seems like it would be nicer with an extra `member` argument than
> > with `memf`.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
