At Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:20:54 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > In any case, given that nobody seems sufficiently interested, maybe > it's best to remove the new functions for this release to avoid code > depending on it which will make later changes more difficult?
I don't think we're going to have any great new ideas. How about leaving them as they are, which is maybe the best compromise we'll find for `racket', and start work on `racket2'? With respect to the conventions of argument order and names, maybe we could have the rule that a function whose name is `X-' takes its X first (and that would be the common case), while functions that do not take the X first simply don't start with `X-'. In that view, the current `map' is not short for `list-map'; it's short for `map-lists'. Similarly, `vector-map' should have been called `map-vectors'. The `list-ref' and `vector-ref' functions are correctly named. The `hash-map' function is also correctly named, although some would prefer that we had `map-hash'; we could have both. Of course, for `racket2', `map' should be short for `map-sequences', not `map-lists', and so on. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
