> On Oct 12, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Greg Hendershott <greghendersh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > p.s. Although `find-most` is OK, IMO `find-` is usually a noise prefix > from the Department of Redundancy Department. Sort of like naming a > function `return-foo` instead of just `foo`. What else would a > function do except find or return foo?
But the thing that `find-min` and `find-max` do differently is that they don't return the value of the min or max; they return the element that produced that value. That's why I think using find is appropriate. Otherwise people will think `find-max` (without the find) just a shorthand for (apply max (map proc list)), when it's not that at all. The `find-most` function wouldn't return the value that is the most greater/less, but it would find the element of the original list that produced that most value. Aside from that, it feels awkward because it seems like saying it's the most greater than everything else. The names `find-best`, `find-most-relevant`, and `first-by`/`find-first-by` sound better in that way. Alex Knauth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
