Initial value for unfold(-right)
John Cowan
(10 Jan 2015 23:49 UTC)
|
Re: Initial value for unfold(-right)
Takashi Kato
(11 Jan 2015 11:39 UTC)
|
Re: Initial value for unfold(-right)
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Jan 2015 17:19 UTC)
|
Re: Initial value for unfold(-right) Takashi Kato (11 Jan 2015 18:44 UTC)
|
Re: Initial value for unfold(-right)
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Jan 2015 21:15 UTC)
|
Re: Initial value for unfold(-right)
Takashi Kato
(12 Jan 2015 06:14 UTC)
|
Re: Initial value for unfold(-right)
Arthur A. Gleckler
(12 Jan 2015 06:16 UTC)
|
Re: Initial value for unfold(-right)
John Cowan
(12 Jan 2015 13:27 UTC)
|
Re: Initial value for unfold(-right) Takashi Kato 11 Jan 2015 18:44 UTC
On 11/01/2015 18:19, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote: > Yes, except that I was proposing that the /initial/ argument be a > list-queue, not a list, to facilitate using list-queue-unfold to add to > an existing queue. Aha, I misunderstood the proposal. > I don't see why types are relevant here in particular. If the caller > doesn't want different types, he shouldn't supply an initial list-queue > that holds a different type. That's just a programming error, not an > error in the API. It's just my feeling that unfold related procedure should return a container only contains the values given mapper procedure returned. I agree with that it's not an error in the API. However it might be clear if users could write something like the following (again it's just my preference): (list-queue-add-back-all! (list-queue-unfold ...) initial) Cheers, -- _/_/ Takashi Kato E-mail: xxxxxx@ymail.com