Oh, yes. in-queue would be better than that! I use for/list a bunch
too, but for these simple things map is pretty hardwired for me ...
Robby
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Jon Rafkind <rafk...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 03:00 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Jon Rafkind <rafk...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2010 02:39 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>>> I added (but have not pushed, apprently) queue-map. Mind if we keep
>>>> that one instead?
>>>>
>>> Instead of what.. queue->list? I guess you can implement queue->list in
>>> terms of queue-map as (queue-map values queue), but I'd rather not write
>>> that in user code.
>> Yes. I assume that you didn't do a map right after queue->list in
>> whatever you were doing?
>>
>> I added it for debugging purposes, so I was doing (queue-map
>> eq-hash-code q) and printing that out.
>>
>
> I was using the list in a for loop. Probably I should have added a new
> sequence type, `in-queue', but its non-trivial to get those sorts of
> macros working properly.
>
> (for ([item (queue->list x)]) ...)
>
> {as a side note, I tend to use for/list instead of map these days :p}
>
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
