Sure, a parameter is fine. And since we're going to have a paramter, then defaulting to the old way seems best.
Thanks! Robby On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Casey Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Robby Findler > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Casey Klein >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:39 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> robby has updated `master' from c6fc7137ee to ce211ac364. >>>> http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/c6fc7137ee..ce211ac364 >>>> >>>> =====[ 1 Commits ]====================================================== >>>> >>>> Directory summary: >>>> 10.1% collects/redex/private/ >>>> 83.2% collects/redex/tests/bmps-macosx/ >>>> 6.6% collects/redex/tests/ >>>> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> ce211ac Robby Findler <[email protected]> 2010-09-17 11:39 >>>> : >>>> | adjusted metafunction application rendering so that ellipses do not >>>> | get commas put in front of them >>>> : >>> >>> FWIW, if I were typesetting this example by hand, I would have done it >>> the old way >>> >>> rdups[| x_1, x_2, ..., x_1, x_3, ... |] >>> >>> not the new way >>> >>> rdups[| x_1, x_2 ..., x_1, x_3 ... |] >>> >>> but maybe I'm alone in that preference. >> >> I had thought that for a while, but some examples I'm working with >> today get really confusing when you do that and just seem ugly. The >> ellipses really isn't a separate item in the argument list; it is an >> operator on the thing that comes before and the lack of a paren >> emphasizes this properly. >> >> IMO. >> > > In that case, maybe there should be a parameter? (I'll be the one to > add it if you want.) > > This rendering seems like a departure from convention. The first two > books I pulled off my shelf (_Semantics of Programming Languages_ and > _Invitation to Discrete Mathematics_) do it the old way. > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
