On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> If you can make syntax identifier thingies like and behave as in a
> short-cutting way when they are used in a context such as andmap, I have no
> objections.
You would need a different list operation -- you can't express
`andmap`
If you can make syntax identifier thingies like and behave as in a
short-cutting way when they are used in a context such as andmap, I have no
objections.
By coincidence, I talked to Vincent an idea like that today but not and and
andmap.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Using and and or as higher-order functions, say for (fold (combine f and) #t
> l) has performance implications. It is quite different from (andmap f l).
In one sense, this is obviously true, since `andmap` is
short-circuiting. But w
Using and and or as higher-order functions, say for (fold (combine f and) #t l)
has performance implications. It is quite different from (andmap f l).
We have thought about this for the student languages on and off. And in the end
I have always come to the conclusion that students must find ou
I don't like this idea for Racket. The macros "and" and "or" do not behave
like functions any more than "if" does. This isn't Haskell, our functions
are eager while our conditional forms are short-circuiting. If we want
first-order values that perform conjunction and disjunction, but eagerly,
we
I just made a pull request for making and/or expand to functions that perform
and/or following a discussion with stamourv and asumu. Vincent believes these
additions should also be made to the student languages, but I thought I'd start
a discussion about this before doing that work.
What are peo
6 matches
Mail list logo
