[plt-dev] Re: promoting unstable libraries

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> On Feb  3, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>> > On Feb  3, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>> >> My proposals:
>> >>
>> >> -- unstable/list --
>> >>
>> >> The following should move:
>> >>    - list-prefix?
>> >
>> > -5 -- a function that removes the shared prefix is something that I'd
>> > use in several places (actually, I can't think of a case that I needed
>> > to know if l1 is a prefix of l2 without wanting the tail of l2 too).
>> > If such a function is added, then adding a `list-prefix?' function
>> > should be layered on top to maximize profits.
>> >
>> >>    - check-duplicate
>> >
>> > -5, for the same reason as I originally said -- it is way better
>> > if this is merged with remove-duplicates, so they can both share
>> > functionality like keyword arguments, and implementation
>> > advantages.  (For example, `remove-duplicates' decides whether it
>> > should use a hash table or the plain list search, but
>> > `check-duplicates' doesn't and instead forces you to choose and
>> > has a bad default.  If there are cases where specifying your
>> > container rather than your equality is needed, then that should be
>> > added to `remove-duplicates' too.)
>>
>> Are you -5ing the functionality, or the implementation?  It seems
>> like if you have a different implementation in mind, then wherever
>> they go, we can use that implementation.
>
> The implementation.  Like I said:
>
> * a `list-prefix?' function should be layered on top
>
> * way better if this is merged with remove-duplicates

That doesn't seem like a reason against having them at all, though.
That seems like a reason to improve them, to me.

--Carl