Re: [Chicken-users] Which API to use (llrb)?

[Dan Leslie]

Whatever works with the doto macro?

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message  
From: Jörg F. Wittenberger
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:47 PM
To: chicken-users
Subject: [Chicken-users] Which API to use (llrb)?

Hi all,

I did some more refinements to the LLRB-code I recently posted here.

However I got stuck on the inability to decide which API to use.

The idea is to have a type "binding-set" (is there a better name?) as an
alternative t alists.

However when it comes to `fold` I'm not sure if it is better to follow
the srfi-1 argument order (combiner-initial-set) or the srfi-69 style
order (set-combiner-initial).

At one hand trying to be a "drop-in" for lists it would better not
change the argument order wrt. srfi-1.

However the fold procedure from srfi-1 takes two arguments, the element
(for alists the key-value-pair) and the accumulated value. The fold
operation for "binding-set" is to be called with three arguments, key,
value and result-so-far. Just like srfi-69's hash-table-fold.

Therefore being 100% drop-in is not possible anyway. Therefore it might
be better to follow to srfi-69 order.

So which line of reasoning to follow? Which one of the following is
APIs "better"? Any reasoning I'm not aware of?

Best

/Jörg


A: srfi-69

<procedure>(binding-set-fold set proc nil)</procedure>

{{Proc}} must be a procedure of three arguments. It is invoked for
each element with the key, value and the accumulated value (nil for
the first element).

B: srfi-1

<procedure>(binding-set-fold proc nil set)</procedure>

{{Proc}} must be a procedure of three arguments. It is invoked for
each element with the key, value and the accumulated value (nil for
the first element).

_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users