Re: [Chicken-users] Idiomatic member? perdicate

[Alex Charlton]

No problem! Better to ask questions than to muck about :)

Bahman Movaqar writes:

> On 01/05/2015 10:44 PM, Alex Charlton wrote:
>> I’d use test-assert with member: http://api.call-cc.org/doc/test/test-assert
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sometimes the quality of my questions is embarrassing :-)
>
>>
>> Bahman Movaqar writes:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>>>


-- 
Alex