[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] Which API to use (llrb)?

From: John Cowan
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Which API to use (llrb)?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:57:11 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

"Jörg F. Wittenberger" scripsit:

> However when it comes to `fold` I'm not sure if it is better to follow
> the srfi-1 argument order (combiner-initial-set) or the srfi-69 style
> order (set-combiner-initial).

SRFI-1 rules, SRFI-69 (in this respect) drools.  The in-progress SRFI
125 uses SRFI 1 order.

> At one hand trying to be a "drop-in" for lists it would better not
> change the argument order wrt. srfi-1.
> However the fold procedure from srfi-1 takes two arguments, the element
> (for alists the key-value-pair) and the accumulated value.  The fold
> operation for "binding-set" is to be called with three arguments, key,
> value and result-so-far.  Just like srfi-69's hash-table-fold.

So SRFI 1 and SRFI 69 agree here, if you think of key and value as the
the way of specifying an association.

John Cowan        address@hidden
C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant
le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux,
de rapport nyait pas.               --Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]