Hi, On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 17:42, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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--- > > > > I'm not sure I understand how this improves the demonstration of 'pk'. > > What does this form of the example demonstrate that the version in the > > patch does not? It's a minor change so I'm happy to make it; I just > > want to ensure that we have the best possible version of the solution > > to the problem you see. > > I'm not sure I understand the motivation too. To me the v2 patch looked > fine as-is. Becasue it shows that you can put more than only one. Qui peut le plus, peut le moins. ;-) And it also shows that you can call stuff. Well, IMHO, once 'pk' is clear for you, you do not see the difference. However, the example I suggest appears to me that it provides more information when learning. Cheers, simon
