From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: 17485@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17485: [PATCH 1/3] Let length+ return the length of dotted lists rather than #f
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:09:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vbsh6l6b.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877g4x8e5p.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Wed, 04 Jun 2014 06:57:54 +0200")
David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>> Otherwise, this function looks good to me, but I'd prefer to give it a
>> new name and move it into list.c, rather than extending SRFI-1's
>> 'length+'.
It's not an "extension" of SRFI-1's length+: it just does the same as
the SRFI-1 reference implementation. It is just a different choice of
working with unspecified behavior than yours.
>> Hmm, coming up with names is hard. Maybe 'length*'?
>
> Given what cons* (and use of id* in syntax rules) does, the name seems
> inappropriate. length* would be a good name for
>
> (length* clist1 clist* ... )
>
> returns the length of the shortest finite list in the given lists, #f
> if there is none. Which would be actually a rather nice building
> block to have for several srfi-1 functions and would basically not
> make us need length+ at all in its implementation.
And that's actually the core of the argument: do we really want to offer
a "length+" that is at best marginally useful for srfi-1 itself?
For a library design, that sounds a lot like "does not eat its own dog
food". Are we really doing users a favor by filling in the
"unspecified" corners of the srfi-1 in a manner not making for a
coherent whole?
--
David Kastrup
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-04 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-13 10:47 bug#17485: (srfi srfi-1) reduce-right does not scale, version 2.0.9 David Kastrup
2014-06-01 23:41 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-06-02 7:59 ` David Kastrup
2014-06-03 18:56 ` bug#17485: [PATCH 1/3] Let length+ return the length of dotted lists rather than #f David Kastrup
2014-06-03 18:56 ` bug#17485: [PATCH 2/3] Rewrite take-right, drop-right, drop-right! David Kastrup
2014-06-04 3:29 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-06-04 3:45 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-09-20 14:56 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-09-20 15:15 ` David Kastrup
2014-09-22 17:15 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-09-22 18:40 ` David Kastrup
2014-06-03 18:56 ` bug#17485: [PATCH 3/3] Reimplement reduce-right in srfi-1 David Kastrup
2014-06-04 3:30 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-06-04 3:42 ` bug#17485: [PATCH 1/3] Let length+ return the length of dotted lists rather than #f Mark H Weaver
2014-06-04 4:57 ` David Kastrup
2014-06-04 10:09 ` David Kastrup [this message]
2014-06-05 13:57 ` David Kastrup
2016-06-21 14:42 ` bug#17485: (srfi srfi-1) reduce-right does not scale, version 2.0.9 Andy Wingo
2016-06-21 15:31 ` David Kastrup
2016-07-12 7:07 ` Andy Wingo
2016-07-12 7:43 ` bug#17485: Ugh, well David Kastrup
2016-07-12 13:54 ` Andy Wingo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87vbsh6l6b.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org \
--to=dak@gnu.org \
--cc=17485@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=mhw@netris.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).