Hi Maxim,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 15:48, Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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).
Well, I do not have a strong opinion on the topic. :-)
I would suggest to apply the ’pk’ on the other branch, something as:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(map (lambda (v)
(if (number? v)
(pk 'number v (number->string v))
v))
'(1 "2" "3" 4))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Cheers,
simon
