An hour ago, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote: > > * ... somewhat anthropomorphically ... > > > > See second item in the guidelines, apply reflection. > > Are you referring to the "concise and clear" bullet? Can you make > your point less obliquely?
I was referring to: Students give up reading [...] if the text [...] uses obscure words At the teacher/programmer the vocabulary is larger, but still "anthropomorphically" is a good demonstration for carrying this principle to the meta level of your guidelines readers. > > * variable -> identifier > > > > (-0.52 because I can see it leaking out of the SLs) > > Do you mean identifier -> variable? [Yes.] > At any rate, we're pretty set on this one, perhaps more so than just > about any other edit. [I don't have any SL objections, just dislike the idea of popularizing the term. Especially when it's bowing to popular terminology from HS math and/or HS CS. (In Hebrew there are two terms, one corresponds to "variable" and the other is roughly "unknown".)] > > * do not write `' around keyword > > > > This can work only in a limited context, where you use > > colors/font/etc or you know that there is no keyword in your > > world that can be confused with text like `like'. Perhaps > > it would be a hook to start using some unicode things? <x> > > «x » ?x? > > Perhaps, but the <...> notation is actually confusing. We have some > evidence for this. So, while we're open to ideas, we think the > current notation is not quite working. I'm talking about 〈x〉, not <x>. In any case, that's also a case where I don't have a strong concrete objection, just vaguely worried that the style will slowly drift over to error messages that *do* need the extra information. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev