Re: New egg: CHICKEN Transducers

[siiky]

Awesomesauce, thanks for the egg and the post! This is a smnall-ish pain 
point of mine too. I'm still processing the post as well, but I can tell 
I'll start using this frequently!

First a couple of typos: In footnote 4 it should be `call/cc` and not 
`call-cc`? And "its not the Scheme I reach for" :p


About question (1) of "Some open problems ...": IMO (transduce type-fold 
...) is a good compromise, and it seems better to me than 
(type-transduce ...) though it means a tiny bit more typing. My 
reasoning is that (intuitively, without having looked at an impl of 
either) type-fold is easier to implement than type-transduce, and thus 
it should also be easier for someone to extend the transducers egg with 
their own fold+collect rather than transduce+collect.  An usecase of 
extending the transducers egg is e.g. if I have an egg where I define a 
data structure foo and would like users of my egg to use transducers on 
(with?) foo, but without having to change the transducers egg itself.

Regarding (4) and strings: if we survived without transducers until now, 
I think can survive until transducers for strings until C6 too and use 
string->list+list-fold :) (I'm assuming UTF-8 will only become core in 
C6, maybe I'm wrong)


Small nitpick comment: I think it makes more sense to have either 
type-fold+type-collect or fold-type+collect-type. It's more common in 
Scheme to name type-operation so I'd give preference to that, but the 
other is more natural and equally good IMO.


Thanks,
siiky