On May 27, David Van Horn wrote:
> On 5/27/10 2:27 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > On May 26, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Eli Barzilay<e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> >>> On May 25, David Van Horn wrote:
> >>>> Could the following make its way into unstable/list? It adds
> >>>> remf for symmetry with findf and memf.
> >>>
> >>> Is there any reason for putting it in unstable? It should not be
> >>> used outside of the racket tree.
> >>
> >> I agree - I can't imagine that the interface to `remf' is likely to
> >> change.
> >
> > I missed the fact that this is removing only the first matching item
> > rather than all of them (which would make it the same as
> > `filter-not'). Are there any cases where this is useful?
>
> Here's a patch that reverts adding remf to unstable and another that
> adds it to racket/list.
(There's no reason to have it as two separate patches...)
> I think remf is useful since it is an abstraction of remove, remv,
> remq, etc., and including it is consistent with findf, memf, and
> assf.
IMO, `findf', `memf', and `assf' are expected to return only the
first, but `remf' isn't. Practically all of my interaction with the
`mem...' functions had two problems: (a) surprising me with the fact
that the non-*ed versions remove only the first, (b) annoying me with
lumping the remove-all functionality with a list-of-values input,
which in almost all cases makes me end up with a (remv* (list x) l).
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
