Re: [Wrapl-discussion] list:delete, list:remove

[Roman M. <rom...@gm...>]

Hi :)

TO :puzzle(list @ List.T) ALL PROD list:copy:delete(list:keys):values;

A silly example, perhaps. And this version, probably, won't work (given two
generators).
I want to show that such a long construct makes a kind of data-flow with
list data. I can terminate it where I want (i.e., I transform the structure
and then - stop, at this point I want to get its :values).
But :delete' behaviour breaks that flow. That is unexpected - partially
because it is not in line with other list methods, and partially because I
didn't intend to get the value(s) at this point. And there are no methods to
delete, returning a list.

Obviously, there are cases where the list is desirable as well as cases
where the value is.

WITH removed_item <- cache:remove(items_by_date()) DO (...);

WITH item <- cache:find(items_by_date()) DO (... => cache:delete(item));

Would you agree that cache resembles a stack-like structure? With the stack
style it is expected (IMO) to get the value when it is removed. Would it be
an option then to have additional :drop and :pick (or :peek) stack-style
methods that behave like current :delete and :remove do, but put :delete and
:remove in line with other list-style methods and with Table module and have
them return the list.

I mean there already are two kinds of behaviour in List module: stack-style
and list-style
(:push, :put) == :insert; (:pop, :pull) == :delete;
I propose to have (:pop, :drop, :pick, :pull) == (:delete, :remove)
equivalence,
were:
:drop(list @ T, n @ Std.Integer.SmallT) : ANY - takes index and returns
value;
:pick(list @ T, value) : ANY - takes value and returns value;
:delete(list @ T, n @ Std.Integer.SmallT) : T - takes index and returns
list;
:remove(list @ T, value) : T - takes value and returns list;

I do not know how this affects your code and you could argue the names.