[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?
From: |
Alex Shinn |
Subject: |
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc? |
Date: |
Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:52:20 +0900 |
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:50 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Alex Shinn <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Alex Shinn <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>> This analogy is meaningless, but for the record
>>>> you should be using fold or reduce here.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is the task of a language to enforce arbitrary
>>> aesthetic criteria. He "should be using"?
>>
>> This has nothing to do with style, but performance
>> and scalability. "apply" will blow up in most implementations
>> depending on the length of the list.
>
> Do you think that we should remove the passage
>
> `concatenate' is the same as `(apply append LIST-OF-LISTS)'. It
> exists because some Scheme implementations have a limit on the
> number of arguments a function takes, which the `apply' might
> exceed. In Guile there is no such limit.
>
> from the manual in order not to seduce people into using Guile?
I think it should be removed because it's no longer true:
scheme@(guile-user)> (apply + (iota 1000000))
standard input:1:0: In procedure #<procedure 102329220 at standard
input:2:0 ()>:
standard input:1:0: Throw to key `vm-error' with args `(vm-run "VM:
Stack overflow" ())'.
--
Alex
- Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/05
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Alex Shinn, 2012/01/05
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Alex Shinn, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Alex Shinn, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, David Kastrup, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Alex Shinn, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, David Kastrup, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?,
Alex Shinn <=
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, David Kastrup, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, David Kastrup, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Andy Wingo, 2012/01/06
- Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Mark H Weaver, 2012/01/06
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, David Kastrup, 2012/01/06
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, David Kastrup, 2012/01/06
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?, Ian Price, 2012/01/06
- Prev by Date:
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?
- Next by Date:
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?
- Previous by thread:
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?
- Next by thread:
Re: Why not support (begin), (cond), (case-lambda), etc?
- Index(es):