> > 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.) >
#lang racket a.k.a. default language seems to be clear on this one when evaluated (list) >> '() didn't know this one myself empty >> '() null >> '() '() >> '() Then what is the 'correct' predicate to go with? empty? null? anything else? br, jukka _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
