At Sat, 2 May 2009 19:47:42 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > This is from the rrrs-authors list (from Will): > > Non-controversial #1: > I object to make-list, list-fill!, list-set!, and list-copy on the > grounds that they are useful only for side-effect-full programming on > lists, which I claim is an unusual style that the standard should not > encourage. The corresponding procedures for strings and vectors are > less objectionable because side-effect-full programming on strings > and vectors is normal in Scheme. [...]
It turns out that Will was wrong with respect to `make-list', since David found lots of good functional uses of `make-list'. At Sat, 2 May 2009 20:16:00 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > 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. Yes, there should be a debate, since the cost of each function is more code, more tests, and more documentation. I lean on the side of inclusion. It's used more in our own sources than I would have guessed, and adding it would be more consistent with the other `make-' functions. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
