What is the policy on what is included in the core libraries?

[Alexis King]

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?

[Robby Findler]

I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
adding aliases.

Perhaps a better way to get people coming from Haskell would be to
write an essay specifically aimed there?

- Step 1: use variables.
- Step 2: here are `for` loops!

;)

Robby

> --
> 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 racket-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to racke...@googlegroups.com.
> 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.

[Matthias Felleisen]

I'd add them to Typed Racket. That's what Haskellians are most likely to explore and when they find them, it's a good thing (tm). -- Matthias

[Jens Axel Søgaard]

2015-02-17 14:26 GMT+01:00 Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu>:
> I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
> adding aliases.

A alternative: Added the word zip to the documentation index,
link it to map and have an example where in (map list ...) is used.

Also: Isn't zip in srfi/1 ?

/Jens Axel

[Sam Tobin-Hochstadt]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard
<jens...@soegaard.net> wrote:
> 2015-02-17 14:26 GMT+01:00 Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu>:

>> I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
>> adding aliases.
>

> A alternative: Added the word zip to the documentation index,
> link it to map and have an example where in (map list ...) is used.

Since `zip` isn't an alias for anything, I think we should add it.

Sam

[Eli Barzilay]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Robby Findler
<ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
> adding aliases.
>
> Perhaps a better way to get people coming from Haskell would be to
> write an essay specifically aimed there?
>
> - Step 1: use variables.
> - Step 2: here are `for` loops!

Instead of an essay, this could be a guide for Haskellers/MLers/
Whatever-ers, which would make it easy to get results into documentation
searches, and that would make it easy to address issues that cannot be
resolved with a new binding like the bad argument order in `take` or the
different input function for the folds.

(Another point for avoiding a `zip` binding is that it's much more
likely to collide with user defined functions than it is in other
languages.)

--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!

[Vincent St-Amour]

I don't think we should add functions to TR that are not in Racket and
that are not clearly type-related (e.g., `cast`).

I also like Jens's solution better. Education vs crutches.

Vincent



At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:39:16 -0500,

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/EAAD5B93-DB78-419B-A662-131AD1D3E303%40ccs.neu.edu.

[Matthias Felleisen]

At some point TR will move on, and perhaps the time has come.

[Robby Findler]

Yes, that's true.

Robby

[Dan Burton]

Matthias, when you say "At some point TR will move on," what do you mean by that? I, for one, would like to see TR more tightly integrated with regular racket a la progressive types, rather than branching off into its own arena.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/63C7696A-1532-400A-825D-247BB3E31750%40ccs.neu.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
-- Dan Burton

[Matthias Felleisen]

(I was thinking dissertations.)

[Alexander D. Knauth]

Somewhat related, would it make sense to add a function like stx-e that would be like (if (syntax? stx) (syntax-e stx) stx) to syntax/stx?

On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:18 AM, Alexis King <lexi....@gmail.com> wrote: