A few minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Josh Tilles wrote at 08/31/2011 01:03 PM:
> > -- Is there any sort of general practice or prevailing taste in when
> > to use (for example) *null* vs *empty* vs *(list)*? What about *(let
> > ([...]))* vs *(local (define ...))*?
>
> I think most people do "'()" when they want a literal null list.
> Don't use "(list)", since that's a procedure call.
Two quick notes: (list) would be optimized the same, I think; and at
least in the Racket sources I think that `null' is the more popular
choice. (With `empty' winning in the more HtDP-oriented side.)
> > P.S. Has anyone given any thought to consolidating some of the
> > Racket discussion to a StackExchange site? Or something else of
> > that ilk?
>
> Racket info is getting spread over too many places already, IMHO.
> Eli is the only person in the world who can find and follow them
> all. I'd like to get more people on the Racket email list, and off
> their little islands where they're getting lower quality and not
> being brought into the fold.
Well, I view that as an unavoidable consequence of growing. That's
why I prefer to (try to) keep track of these places rather than
discourage them. (But I do discourage on-line forum things that aim
to replace the mailing list, since those won't work as well...)
Specifically for the SO case -- it has a bunch of advantages over a
mailing list, and it will be good (IMO) if more people get involved
there.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
