Hi Simon,
Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>> +@lisp
>> +(map (lambda (v)
>> + (if (number? v)
>> + (number->string v)
>> + (pk v)))
>> + '(1 "2" "3" 4))
>> +@result{}
>> +
>> +;;; ("2")
>> +
>> +;;; ("3")
>> +("1" "2" "3" "4")
>> +@end
>
> For what it is worth, I would suggest something as:
>
> (map (lambda (v)
> (if (number? v)
> (number->string v)
> (begin
> (pk 'else v)
> (pk (string-append "-" v "0")))))
> '(1 "2" "3" 4))
>
> For two reasons:
>
> 1. ’begin’ helps to mark a sequence of expressions; IMHO, that’s a good
> habit when playing with ’pk’ for debugging purpose.
>
> 2. it exposes that ’stuff’ above can be anything.
>
>
> Well, my suggestion could be two other examples in addition to the
> current one instead of the complexification.
I think I'd prefer more simple examples than a single more complicated
one, if we go that route. I think the text explained 'peek' clearly
already, though, so I personally would opt to leave it as is, especially
since adding a 'begin' block to showcase multiple 'pk' calls goes
against the merit of peek of being least intrusive (it prints then
returns the value, so the code structure needs not be changed).
--
Thanks,
Maxim
