Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

there is no correct way to use list-sort! or list-stable-sort! William D Clinger (09 Mar 2016 12:31 UTC)
more corrections for SRFI 132 William D Clinger (10 Mar 2016 17:06 UTC)
Re: more corrections for SRFI 132 William D Clinger (10 Mar 2016 19:37 UTC)
Re: more corrections for SRFI 132 William D Clinger (10 Mar 2016 20:32 UTC)
benchmarking the SRFI 132 reference implementation William D Clinger (10 Mar 2016 23:20 UTC)
Re: more corrections for SRFI 132 William D Clinger (12 Mar 2016 03:07 UTC)
Re: more corrections for SRFI 132 Alex Shinn (12 Mar 2016 23:26 UTC)
Re: more corrections for SRFI 132 John Cowan (13 Mar 2016 22:02 UTC)
Re: there is no correct way to use list-sort! or list-stable-sort! John Cowan (13 Mar 2016 06:15 UTC)

Re: there is no correct way to use list-sort! or list-stable-sort! John Cowan 13 Mar 2016 06:15 UTC

Kevin Wortman scripsit:

> +1, it seems to be well-established since at least SRFI 1 that destructive
> operations return their result.

Linear-update routines necessarily return their result, since there is no
guarantee that the object returned is or is not the object passed.
Purely destructive routines, like vector-set!, typically return an
undefined value.

--
My .sigs are from my large and miscellaneous reading both on and off the net.
Occasionally I hear one viva voce or make one up (without attribution,
of course).  I try to stay within the McQuary limit, but sometimes fail,
as in this case.  In general, the quotes are chosen at random by a script
from <http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures>, but sometimes I choose one
on purpose.  I've been collecting and using them for 30+ years.