On 11/23/2012 01:47 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
On 11/22/2012 11:33 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Two days ago, Neil Toronto wrote:
Anyway, it occurred to me that I need to provide a more robust way
to generate code for literal arrays anyway. Keywords are more easily
preserved by macros than syntax properties:
Why not use vector syntax #(...) instead of [...]?
That is a fantastic idea. Thanks!
(The problem I was having with head identifiers like `array-row' was
that they got in the way when I was reading the array. Vector syntax
solves that neatly.)
I've thought about it more and come up with a weird case:
(array #((list 1 2)))
Should this array contain '(1 2) or '(list 1 2)?
I'm not keen on the idea of the `array' macro only being useful for
quoted datums, especially since it's not a reader macro. But if the
above array contained '(1 2), that would be inconsistent with #((list 1
2)), which contains '(list 1 2):
> (vector-ref #((list 1 2)) 0)
'(list 1 2)
I've considered having `array' implicitly quote its contents, so
(array ((list 1 2)))
contains '(list 1 2), but
(array (,(list 1 2)))
contains '(1 2).
That might actually work the way I want it to. Do you see any problems
with it?
Neil ⊥
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
