On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Casey Klein <clkl...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> 1. I like Robby's mode suggestion. >> 2. I prefer shorter keywords, e.g., define-judgment. > > I'm having trouble reconciling these comments. Robby's suggestion, if > I understand it correctly, is to overload the `define-relation' name > instead of choosing a new one. If you supply the #:mode keyword, you > get the `define-judgment-form' behavior (inputs and outputs, static > checking, the `judgment-holds' syntax for application); if not, you > get the current `define-relation' behavior.
My suggestion was meant to be separate from the overloading thing. You could use a #:mode even for define-judgment. (Casey is referring to the idea that define-relation is kind of like define-judgment but where you have an all-output mode as the default.) > Do you mean keep the forms separate but use the name `define-judgment' > for the new one? I intentionally avoided that name because what it > defines, for example `sum', is not itself a judgment. Judgments are > uses of that thing, i.e., assertions about particular objects, for > example (sum z z z). > >> 3. Why is this in github and not in the docs? >> > > Oh, good idea! > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
