On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> > wrote: >> >> - The for... forms remind me too much of do. There just don't seem to >> be primitives with the simplicity of map/filter/fold for sequences. >> Perhaps I'm missing them. > > 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) > > 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 am in the middle of adding many more sequence functions to correspond to list functions. Jay > -- > sam th > sa...@ccs.neu.edu > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
