5 ms·
Well, after all we've always used CAR and CDR! If it was good enough then, why shouldn't it be good enough now? Also, the proposed new keywords were on average
by _0ffh 10y ago
Well, after all we've always used CAR and CDR! If it was good enough then, why shouldn't it be good enough now?
Also, the proposed new keywords were on average 50% longer. Just too much typing! With FST and RST they would have stood a chance. HD and TL would have been clear winners!
- tspiteri 10y agoAnd fst and rst allow for composition too: caar -> ffst cddar -> rrfst
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoBut that doesn't look as nice.
- Turing_Machine 10y agoIt would need to have a pronunciation convention before it could catch on. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/pronounce.scm https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/pronounce.scm
- bhrgunatha 10y agoInstead of (f)irst/(r)est we could use (h)ead _or_ (f)irst and (r)est. Then the pronunciation is just exactly as it is spelled - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spefM2OjKp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spefM2OjKp4
- nothrabannosir 10y agoI am disproportionally moved by this elegance.
- AlbertoGP 10y agoThat's right, but I would go one step further and have F(irst) and R(est), with obvious composition as follows: (using kruhft's examples from another thread) (ff x) == (caar x) == (car (car x)) (rrf x) == (cddar x) == (cdr (cdr (car x))) I would argue that it's worth sacrificing the 'f' and 'r' symbols for such a common construct. If not, a common prefix (lacking in HD and TL) could be used: (.ff x) == (caar x) == (car (car x)) (.rrf x) == (cddar x) == (cdr (cdr (car x))) Yes, I realize I'm 55 years late to the party.