[racket] Interesting article

From: Jay McCarthy (jay.mccarthy at gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 11 23:55:45 EDT 2010

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>> - The for... forms remind me too much of do.  There just don't seem to
>> be primitives with the simplicity of map/filter/fold for sequences.
>> Perhaps I'm missing them.
> Personally, I find the `for' macros more concise, except when there's
> already a function that I would pass to `map' etc.   Compare:
> (for/list ([x e]) (f x))
> (map (lambda (x) (f x)) e)
> I think the bigger problem from a datatype-genericity point of view is
> that sequences don't have enough operations (sequence-ref,
> sequence-set, etc).

I am in the middle of adding many more sequence functions to
correspond to list functions.


> --
> sam th
> samth at ccs.neu.edu
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users

Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93

Posted on the users mailing list.