> Personally, I find the `for' macros more concise, except when there's > already a function that I would pass to `map' etc. Compare: > > (for/list ([x e]) (f x)) > (map (lambda (x) (f x)) e)
Your comparison is perhaps a bit unfair (since you've needlessly eta-expanded the function), but I agree that if the function hasn't already been written, it's often easier to just "inline" its body. > I think the bigger problem from a datatype-genericity point of view is > that sequences don't have enough operations (sequence-ref, > sequence-set, etc). I think that's right. It's also the case they aren't admitted all the places in the core that lists are, right? Shriram _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
