Re: [Chicken-hackers] alternative name for `find-files'

[Felix]

From: Peter Bex <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] alternative name for `find-files'
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 12:47:40 +0200

> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:45:19AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
>> That's a hard one. find-files is the perfect name for this procedure :(
>> Maybe DIRECTORY-FILTER, as it's like a (recursive) version of DIRECTORY
>> but with a filtered result set?
> 
> I did a quick tour of the other major Schemes and was horrified to see
> how underpowered the bulk of them are; many schemes didn't even have
> such a procedure!  I found the following:

Many thanks (to you and the others) for reviewing the possible option
and making suggestions. I was about to implement `directory-fold', but
in the end did something else: `find-files' is kept, got a new
signature (using keywords instead of optionals) but still supports the
old signature (which has been deprecated), unless the second argument
(if provided) is not a keyword.

It's a dirty, mean and tasteless hack. I just love it.

(`directory-fold' is probably more suited for a compatibility
extension)

> Taylor Campbell also made a proposal that is equivalent to Chibi AFAICT:
> http://mumble.net/~campbell/proposals/filesys.text

I generally try to ignore proposals made by Mr. Campbell (that's not
intended to demean Mr. Campbell (whom I regard as a very intelligent
person, a ingenious Scheme hacker and a macrology god), but
Mr. Campbell's proposals).


cheers,
felix