On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > > Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > >> +(define (hash-keys table) > >> + "Return all the keys from hash table." > >> + (hash-map->list (lambda (x y) x) table)) > > > > That doesn’t seem sufficiently common to warrant a new procedure. WDYT? > > FWIW, I think it would be reasonable to add 'hash-keys'. Many users > are accustomed to writing in a style that's made more convenient by > 'hash-keys', and in cases where efficiency is not crucial, I think > it's a fine style. Also, sometimes the values aren't needed. > > IMO, we can afford to add a few conveniences such as this. > > Thanks for saying that. And please consider 'hash-items' implemented with hash-count, it's common as well. And I'm not sure about hash-size myself, I won't insist on it. Thanks! > Mark > >
