Now that I'm a whiny junior dev, does that mean I can do the +/-1 thing?
Because after reading Eli's argument - particularly the symmetry
arguments - I'm totally +1-ing his proposal.
This is one of the last places I find myself using the (let () ...)
idiom. (The others are `define-syntax-rule', `syntax-rules' and
`syntax-case', but I don't think those should change.)
Neil T
On 12/30/2011 01:36 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
I was against it for similar reasons, but the question is whether
there's a technical point that makes it a bad choice.
As for making errors: I changed my mind when I though about the
symmetry argument -- using the same argument, I'd expect to do the
exact same kind of mistakes with functions, but I don't think that
I've ever had one. Another factor is that if you think about possible
mistakes, then I take it as a point in favor of doing this, since it
reduces the number o ff parens as well as getting rid of the familiar
(define foo (let () ...stuff...)) thing which should result in less
mistakes.
8 hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
I'm mildly against it, since it seems too easy to make parenthesis
errors that are very confusing (ie if you move a paren from the end
of one define to the end of a following define, the errors will get
strange).
Robby
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Eli Barzilay<e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
Does anyone know of a reason to not have an implicit `begin' in a
plain definition, translated into an implicit (let () ...) in racket?
When I see things like this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8667403
I think that people expect the syntax of `define' to be uniform, so if
you can switch these:
(define (foo x) (+ x 1))
(define foo (+ 8 1))
then the expectation is for the same to work when there are multiple
expressions.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
