scheme/list requests [was: Re: [plt-dev] Re: more requests for typed-scheme]

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at
Date: Sat May 2 20:16:00 EDT 2009

On May  2, Sam TH wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I know.  Yet these are still a minority where `build-list'
> > does fine -- specifically (a) none of these pieces of code had a
> > separate abstraction for `make-list' (b) the confusion re its
> > utility and immutability of lists is still there.
> As to (a), that doesn't tell us anything about whether it would be
> useful.  No one had written `for/list' before Matthew did, but it's
> very useful.

Of course people wrote that -- many times, to varying degrees of

> When we have a function that we can easily add to a library, and
> that would simplify multiple pieces of code we write, we should add
> it.  I don't see why there's a debate about this.

There are orders of magnitude more functions that fall in this
category and are not added to the libraries, so there is obviously a

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                         Maze is Life!

Posted on the dev mailing list.