choose-and-remove! operation Arthur A. Gleckler (11 Sep 2015 18:14 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2015 19:00 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation Arthur A. Gleckler (11 Sep 2015 22:10 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation John Cowan (12 Sep 2015 03:10 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Sep 2015 03:16 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (12 Sep 2015 05:12 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation John Cowan (12 Sep 2015 05:31 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation John Cowan (12 Sep 2015 03:03 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (12 Sep 2015 12:43 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation John Cowan (12 Sep 2015 14:23 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (12 Sep 2015 19:52 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (12 Sep 2015 20:29 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Sep 2015 20:51 UTC)
Re: choose-and-remove! operation taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (12 Sep 2015 22:02 UTC)

Re: choose-and-remove! operation John Cowan 12 Sep 2015 03:10 UTC

Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit:

> The syntax is fine, but shouldn't be relied upon to exist.  At a minimum,
> there should be a procedural interface.

I think the procedural interface would be (popper <ref-procedure), and
likewise (pusher <ref-procedure> and so on.

> It's O(1) vs. O(N), which quickly matters, especially when it's executed in
> a loop.

I don't understand this.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your ear.  However, I would
suggest you wash your hands thoroughly before going to the toilet.
        --gadicath