On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > On Friday, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> # `unstable/list` >> >> - `remf`, `list-update` `list-set` `map/values`: move to >> `racket/list` >> - `group-by`: rename to `group`, add keyword argument `#:by` >> defaulting to `equal?`, move to `racket/list` > > All of these are used in the tree only by their authors, and almost > all of them are used between zero and time. > > `remf' is the same as `filter-not'.
This is false, as the example in the `remf` docs shows. > `map/values' can be expressed in most cases more conveniently with > `for/fold'. I've used `map/values`, and I'm not its author. Also, it's a function that I've seen requested for years. > `group-by' is doing something weird -- see for example clojure's > function by the same name that does something that looks more useful > (IMO). Also, `group' sounds way too generic for something as specific > as what it does. `group-by`, and my proposed `group`, is what Haskell provides. I don't find the Clojure version nearly as compelling, since it combines a map and a grouping operation. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
