[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] Idiomatic member? perdicate
From: |
Bahman Movaqar |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] Idiomatic member? perdicate |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:39:38 +0330 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 |
On 01/05/2015 10:26 PM, Alex Charlton wrote:
> Just use member. Member returns #f when the element is not contained in the
> list. Your first function will never return #f, since member never returns an
> empty list.
My mistake. This naive question actually popped up when I was writing
tests...the following will fail where it should pass because "test"
expects an identical value to pass.
(test #t (member a-thing list-of-things))
So how would you go around this?
>
> Bahman Movaqar writes:
>
>> I need to check if a list contains an element. There are 2 approaches as
>> far as I could gather:
>>
>> A: (define (member? e l) (not (null? (member e l))))
>> B: (define (member? e l) (any (lambda (x) (equal? x e)) l)) ;; using
>> srfi-1
>>
>> Which one do you seasoned CHICKEN'ers recommend in terms of performance
>> and being idiomatic?
>>
--
Bahman Movaqar
http://BahmanM.com - https://twitter.com/bahman__m
https://github.com/bahmanm - https://gist.github.com/bahmanm
PGP Key ID: 0x6AB5BD68 (keyserver2.pgp.com)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature