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!
Kevin Wortman
(11 Mar 2016 19:44 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!
Alex Shinn
(12 Mar 2016 23:36 UTC)
|
Re: there is no correct way to use list-sort! or list-stable-sort!
John Cowan
(13 Mar 2016 05:47 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.