I was just thinking today that I would, for example, find it useful to have a (zip ...) function in racket/list that would be equivalent to (map list ...). Users coming from a Haskell background might even find it useful to have a zip-with function that is simply an alias for map. Admittedly, these are rather trivial, but (especially in the first case) I think they’d still be useful.
I am all for avoiding feature creep and code bloat, but Racket’s “batteries included” approach seems to make functions like these prime candidates for libraries like racket/list. As long as they’re not in racket/base, they seem fairly harmless, especially considering they would only be needed at compile-time. Should I even consider adding things like this, or is the consensus that the libraries are mostly sufficient as-is? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/5D941DB1-8A55-4A41-98A2-A3BE1BFE6D40%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
