(Previous discussion continued)
|
||
Association list utilities
Lassi Kortela
(10 Jun 2020 08:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: Association list utilities
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(10 Jun 2020 08:30 UTC)
|
||
Re: Association list utilities
Lassi Kortela
(10 Jun 2020 08:48 UTC)
|
||
Re: Association list utilities
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(10 Jun 2020 09:29 UTC)
|
||
Re: Association list utilities
Lassi Kortela
(10 Jun 2020 09:59 UTC)
|
||
Re: Association list utilities
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(10 Jun 2020 10:09 UTC)
|
||
Re: Association list utilities
Lassi Kortela
(10 Jun 2020 10:37 UTC)
|
||
Re: Association list utilities Arne Babenhauserheide (10 Jun 2020 10:33 UTC)
|
Re: Association list utilities Arne Babenhauserheide 10 Jun 2020 10:33 UTC
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> writes: > Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 10:49 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>: > >> Using two-element lists instead of pairs means that another pair has to >> > be needlessly allocated for each entry in the association list. >> > > We have already alists and plists. Maybe, it makes sense to coin another > term, say, xlists where the entries are proper lists. Then we would have > `xlist-cons', etc. I’m a bit surprised by this, because I see that already working with Guile: (import (srfi srfi-1)) (assoc 0 (alist-cons 0 '(a b c) '())) ;; => (0 a b c) (assoc-ref (alist-cons 0 '(a b c) '()) 0) ;; => (a b c) Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken