On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> wrote: >> 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) > > Your comparison is perhaps a bit unfair (since you've needlessly > eta-expanded the function), but I agree that if the function hasn't > already been written, it's often easier to just "inline" its body.
I was just trying to use a placeholder expression here - I agree that when you're just mapping `f' over a list, `map' is more convenient. >> 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). > > I think that's right. It's also the case they aren't admitted all the > places in the core that lists are, right? Yes, but that's an architectural change that would be much harder to make. In particular, the whole concept of sequences is a library, making it difficult or impossible to use it in the true "core". -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
