On 2012-06-19 17:54:48 -0400, Harry Spier wrote:
2. Why the names arithmetic-shift and integer-length instead of
bitwise-shift and bitwise-length ?
Late reply, but here's a reason: SRFI-33[1] and SRFI-60[2] already use
these names. Although it looks like Racket's `arithmetic-shift` name
FWIW, I agree with Robby and have had similar conversations with Sam
in person. (Although for me it is that I wish I had the ability to
claim that macro pieces had certain types regardless of what TR could
infer from the generated code.)
I think a big part of the Racket philosophy is that the
It might be useful to add to the language a combined function such as
(argminmax proc lst) that returned both the minimum and maximum values
of applying proc to lst. So that for very large lists (or for very
large numbers of lists where you need to know the min and max values
in the lists)
The science collection already has such a function (minimum-maximum
a-sequence) that works for any sequence - e.g., lists or vectors. For
example:
#lang racket
(require (planet williams/science/science))
(minimum-maximum
(for/list ((i (in-range 10)))
(random-unit-gaussian)))
4 matches
Mail list logo
