On Aug 31, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Jukka Tuominen wrote: > >> >> 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 >> '() > '() >> '()
I'd stick with '() and HtDP/2e will move there. > Then what is the 'correct' predicate to go with? > > empty? > null? > > anything else? I'd stick with empty?. History brought in car, cdr, null? and null and that's bad because programmers may accidentally connect this to Java's NULL, which is a horrible idea. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
