On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> wrote: > > - The for... forms remind me too much of do. There just don't seem to > be primitives with the simplicity of map/filter/fold for sequences. > Perhaps I'm missing them.
Personally, I find the `for' macros more concise, except when there's already a function that I would pass to `map' etc. Compare: (for/list ([x e]) (f x)) (map (lambda (x) (f x)) e) I think the bigger problem from a datatype-genericity point of view is that sequences don't have enough operations (sequence-ref, sequence-set, etc). -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
