Somewhat related, would it make sense to add a function like stx-e that would be like (if (syntax? stx) (syntax-e stx) stx) to syntax/stx?
On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:18 AM, Alexis King <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > compile-time. > > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/5D941DB1-8A55-4A41-98A2-A3BE1BFE6D40%40gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/B0E5B796-5C34-44E3-8B54-7A17169AF121%40knauth.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
