Re: [racket-dev] current-*-port

2012-05-03 Thread David T. Pierson
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:48:17PM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > With the trend of having shorter names, I'll try suggesting it again. > Looking at some random slides (the ones from Matthew's talk), one > thing that is -- still -- very strikingly inconvenient is code like > > (parameterize ([curr

Re: [racket-dev] current-*-port

2012-05-03 Thread Neil Van Dyke
Matthias Felleisen wrote at 05/03/2012 10:57 PM: I don't think Eli is proposing an elimination of the old names but supplementing the code base with new ones. I am in favor -- Matthias Would be good to have a shorter naming convention for all parameters. The "current-" prefix is not short,

Re: [racket-dev] current-*-port

2012-05-03 Thread Matthias Felleisen
I don't think Eli is proposing an elimination of the old names but supplementing the code base with new ones. I am in favor -- Matthias _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

Re: [racket-dev] current-*-port

2012-05-03 Thread Ryan Culpepper
On 05/03/2012 02:09 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: Eli Barzilay wrote at 05/03/2012 03:48 PM: (parameterize ([stderr (stdout)]) ...) I'm not sure how I feel about shortening these, but an additional consideration is that a naming convention for parameters (so far, prefixing with "current-") has been

Re: [racket-dev] current-*-port

2012-05-03 Thread Carl Eastlund
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Danny Yoo wrote: > > IMO, anyone who is not coming from some kind of Scheme background > > would view this as ridiculously long. If they're renamed to the usual > > names, things look much better: > > > > (parameterize ([stderr (stdout)]) > >...) > > > Defini

Re: [racket-dev] current-*-port

2012-05-03 Thread Neil Van Dyke
Eli Barzilay wrote at 05/03/2012 03:48 PM: (parameterize ([stderr (stdout)]) ...) I'm not sure how I feel about shortening these, but an additional consideration is that a naming convention for parameters (so far, prefixing with "current-") has been useful. I think a naming conve

Re: [racket-dev] current-*-port

2012-05-03 Thread Danny Yoo
> IMO, anyone who is not coming from some kind of Scheme background > would view this as ridiculously long.  If they're renamed to the usual > names, things look much better: > >  (parameterize ([stderr (stdout)]) >    ...) Definitely +1. _ Racket Developers list: htt

[racket-dev] current-*-port

2012-05-03 Thread Eli Barzilay
With the trend of having shorter names, I'll try suggesting it again. Looking at some random slides (the ones from Matthew's talk), one thing that is -- still -- very strikingly inconvenient is code like (parameterize ([current-error-port (current-output-port)]) ...) IMO, anyone who is not

Re: [racket-dev] implicit begin for define-syntax-rule

2012-05-03 Thread J. Ian Johnson
I would say no, since a "syntax rule" is a single rewrite rule. Perhaps you want a simple shim around syntax-rules? Like: (define-syntax-rules [(id . pat) rhs] ...+) where id must be the same in all templates? Simple implementation: (define-syntax (define-syntax-rules stx) (syntax-case stx (

[racket-dev] implicit begin for define-syntax-rule

2012-05-03 Thread Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, would it make sense for define-syntax-rule to have an implicit begin such that it could accept multiple forms for the template? Marijn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://eni