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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
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.

Reply via email to