At Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:51:42 -0500,
Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> > I agree with Eli. first is not car and shouldn't be treated as it.
> >
> > car : (Cons a b) -> a
> > first : (List a) -> a
>
> Right -- it's a different type, and the `list?' check adds a cost.
>
20 minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> If they do the wrong thing, we should fix them, not deprecate them.
I'm not saying that they should be deprecated.
> We're not LISP, let's not promote car/cdr as the primary names for
> list operations.
And I'm not suggesting that either. (In fact, in *C*L
Vincent's proposal wasn't "let's treat car as first", his proposal was
"let's export it in racket/base". If we don't like first/rest, we should
have a proposal to remove them from #lang racket... right? Otherwise,
let's put them in racket/base. They're very simple names for very, very
common ope
I agree with Eli. first is not car and shouldn't be treated as it.
car : (Cons a b) -> a
first : (List a) -> a
I also agree with Carl that we should deprecate grandpa's names and
give nice names. I suggest "fst" and "snd" and "pair"
Jay
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>
If they do the wrong thing, we should fix them, not deprecate them. We're
not LISP, let's not promote car/cdr as the primary names for list
operations.
Carl Eastlund
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> -1, since they are different from what some people would expect them
>
-1, since they are different from what some people would expect them
to do. -2 for the `empty', `cons?' etc aliases.
An hour and a half ago, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> I just got tripped up, again, trying to traverse a list with `first'
> and `rest' in a `racket/base' file. `first' and `rest' are
Throw cons? in with empty?, please.
Carl Eastlund
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2012-12-13 12:44:38 -0500, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> > Does this sound reasonable?
>
> +1. While we're at it, might as well also put at least `empty` and
> `empty?` in there too. Thes
On 2012-12-13 12:44:38 -0500, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> Does this sound reasonable?
+1. While we're at it, might as well also put at least `empty` and
`empty?` in there too. These trip me up as well.
Cheers,
Asumu
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/
I just got tripped up, again, trying to traverse a list with `first' and
`rest' in a `racket/base' file. `first' and `rest' are only available in
`racket' and `racket/list', but not in `racket/base'.
If we want to encourage use of `first' and `rest' over `car' and `cdr'
and of `racket/base' when p
9 matches
Mail list logo
