Re: [Factor-talk] Remove [let, [let*, [wlet and leave : to simplify locals?
On Oct 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Jon Harper wrote: : et [let are different because : can't be used everywhere. That's a good point, Jon. Here's another idea: We could reduce [let ] to merely introduce a nested lexical scope, removing the | ... | part and leaving it up to : to make bindings within the [let ] block. [let ] would still work within a : definition as well. So your example could look like this: : toto ( a b -- c ) [let 6 * : b' b' + ] ; -Joe -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
[Factor-talk] Remove [let, [let*, [wlet and leave : to simplify locals?
There's a bit of redundancy in locals. You can bind a variable using :, [let, or [let*, and the two latter forms just get transformed into the former behind the scenes. The [let forms also seem unnecessarily bulky compared to : . What would you all say to phasing out the [let forms and just leaving : ? Also, nobody appears to use [wlet . Would anyone object to that being removed? -Joe -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
Re: [Factor-talk] Remove [let, [let*, [wlet and leave : to simplify locals?
: et [let are different because : can't be used everywhere. From the docs: Notes This word ( : ) can only be used inside a lambda word, lambda quotation or let binding form. : toto ( a b -- c ) [let | b' [ 6 * ] | b' + ] ; ! works : toto ( a b -- c ) 6 * : b' b' + ; ! does not work I like the [let form better than :, but that's just my opinion, and I'm very new to factor. On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Joe Groff arc...@gmail.com wrote: There's a bit of redundancy in locals. You can bind a variable using :, [let, or [let*, and the two latter forms just get transformed into the former behind the scenes. The [let forms also seem unnecessarily bulky compared to : . What would you all say to phasing out the [let forms and just leaving : ? Also, nobody appears to use [wlet . Would anyone object to that being removed? -Joe -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk -- Jon Harper -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
