|
Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(26 Sep 2015 17:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(29 Sep 2015 03:06 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(29 Sep 2015 09:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(29 Sep 2015 11:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 03:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 09:37 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 14:02 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 20:44 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(01 Oct 2015 08:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(29 Sep 2015 11:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(01 Oct 2015 12:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 03:32 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 08:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 09:38 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 09:46 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (30 Sep 2015 10:03 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Evan Hanson
(30 Sep 2015 11:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 22:34 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Per Bothner
(29 Sep 2015 11:14 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
John Cowan
(29 Sep 2015 12:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Per Bothner
(29 Sep 2015 12:47 UTC)
|
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 09:15 UTC)
|
xxxxxx@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> Add1 and sub1 are similarly trivial definitions, but if you say they're
> so common, then I have no problem adding them under misc. procedures.
> Will do in a moment.
I now defined:
=====
- `(hashtable-inc! hashtable key)` (procedure)
- `(hashtable-inc! hashtable key x)`
Effectively equivalent to:
(hashtable-update! hashtable key (lambda (x) (+ x k)) 0)
where x is 1 when not provided.
- `(hashtable-dec! hashtable key)` (procedure)
- `(hashtable-dec! hashtable key x)`
Effectively equivalent to:
(hashtable-update! hashtable key (lambda (x) (- x k)) #f)
where x is 1 when not provided.
=====
Are these OK? In particular, is it OK that dec! errors when no
association exists, and inc! makes it start from 0 automatically?
Taylan