On May 2, Sam TH wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I know. Yet these are still a minority where `build-list'
> > does fine -- specifically (a) none of these pieces of code had a
> > separate abstraction for `make-list' (b) the confusion re its
> > utility and immutability of lists is still there.
>
> As to (a), that doesn't tell us anything about whether it would be
> useful. No one had written `for/list' before Matthew did, but it's
> very useful.
Of course people wrote that -- many times, to varying degrees of
completeness.
> When we have a function that we can easily add to a library, and
> that would simplify multiple pieces of code we write, we should add
> it. I don't see why there's a debate about this.
There are orders of magnitude more functions that fall in this
category and are not added to the libraries, so there is obviously a
debate.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
