I was just thinking today that I would, for example, find it useful to have a
(zip ...) function in racket/list that would be equivalent to (map list ...).
Users coming from a Haskell background might even find it useful to have a
zip-with function that is simply an alias for map. Admittedly, these are rather
trivial, but (especially in the first case) I think they’d still be useful.
I am all for avoiding feature creep and code bloat, but Racket’s “batteries
included” approach seems to make functions like these prime candidates for
libraries like racket/list. As long as they’re not in racket/base, they seem
fairly harmless, especially considering they would only be needed at
Should I even consider adding things like this, or is the consensus that the
libraries are mostly sufficient as-is?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.