I was just thinking today that I would, for example, find it useful to have a (zip ...) function in racket/list that would be equivalent to (map list ...). Users coming from a Haskell background might even find it useful to have a zip-with function that is simply an alias for map. Admittedly, these are rather trivial, but (especially in the first case) I think they’d still be useful.
I am all for avoiding feature creep and code bloat, but Racket’s “batteries included” approach seems to make functions like these prime candidates for libraries like racket/list. As long as they’re not in racket/base, they seem fairly harmless, especially considering they would only be needed at compile-time. Should I even consider adding things like this, or is the consensus that the libraries are mostly sufficient as-is? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/5D941DB1-8A55-4A41-98A2-A3BE1BFE6D40%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
