[racket-dev] going to Strange Loop?

Anyone going to strange loop? Want to share a hotel room? Best, John _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

[racket-dev] Lists aren't sets, but have set-like operations

I just wasted about 2 hours tracking down a bug that ended up being due to (set? '()) now evaluating to #t. I have no problems with set-union, intersection, etc. being defined for lists, but to treat lists as sets always is perverse to me. The contracts for set operations should use set-like? fo

Re: [racket-dev] Lists aren't sets, but have set-like operations

Ian, sets are now a generic datatype, like dictionaries. Association lists are dictionaries, and lists are now sets. They're also streams and sequences. They're not just "set-like". Carl Eastlund On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:56 PM, J. Ian Johnson wrote: > I just wasted about 2 hours tracking d

Re: [racket-dev] Lists aren't sets, but have set-like operations

Okay, I can abide. However, that doesn't really get at my frustration. I'm using the set constructor, that appears to now be an immutable-custom-set with make-immutable-hash as its make-table. So what I'm looking for is not set?, but set-immutable?, as it's a distinct (family of) struct types th

Re: [racket-dev] Lists aren't sets, but have set-like operations

Ah, yes. The set? predicate no longer distinguishes a representation. There are several predicates for the original set type, now called "hash sets": set-eq?, set-eqv?, set-equal?, set-mutable?, set-immtuable?, and set-weak?. I didn't add the basic "hash-set?", but perhaps I should. It's a weird