Oh, I'm not sure. I just picked sequences to fit into for loops. (Indeed, the code was mostly there already, I just stuck it on the struct.)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Asumu Takikawa <as...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On 2012-11-21 12:50:49 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Asumu Takikawa <as...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> > Should queues also be streams or just sequences? >> >> I didn't think about this: if you think they should also be streams, >> that's okay with me. I'm not really sure of the benefits. > > I actually asked this because I'm not sure myself. We have two APIs: > sequences and streams, but it's not entirely clear to me when to prefer > one over the other. > > Streams support `first`, `rest`, and `empty?`. Sequences don't directly > support either `first` or `rest`, but with the `sequence-ref` and > `sequence-tail` functions you can emulate them. > > One advantage of streams is that there's now an easy way to implement > them (via the `gen:stream` generic interface). > > Is there a guiding principle behind these APIs? > > Cheers, > Asumu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev