A few minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>
> I don't mind having "stdout", "stderr", and "stdin" as aliases for
> their current names.
>
> As a naming convention for all parameters, however, I wouldn't mind
> keeping the existing one ("current-" prefix), although it is a
> little cumbersome. And
Marijn wrote at 05/07/2012 10:54 AM:
How about prefixing a tilda (~) instead of "current-"? It looks like a
current ;P and also like a snake (parameters could be thought to
``snake'' through the code). Alternatively the at-sign (@) to
represent currentness. To make them stand out more (if that is
Oh, man. Now I wish that Emacs temporary files didn't end with ~
(because seeing that makes me want to delete it) otherwise, I love
this idea for a naming convention for parameters. (To fit in with
other naming conventions, we should probably use a suffix, tho, and
"@", "^", "%", and "<%>" have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04-05-12 05:03, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> 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 b
[Shuffled]
Yesterday, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> I don't think Eli is proposing an elimination of the old names but
> supplementing the code base with new ones.
Yes, I'm suggesting something along the lines of a simple addition to
`racket/base':
(provide (rename-out [current-output-port st
I know I know. I can't script in anything but Racket.
And I have written such scripts and better still I teach such directory
traversals to freshmen :-)
On May 4, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Laurent wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Matthias Felleisen wrote at
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Matthias Felleisen wrote at 05/04/2012 10:41 AM:
>
>> On May 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Laurent wrote
>>
>>> An interesting idea would be to count the number of times each
>>> identifier is used in the sources, and see how many characters would be
Matthias Felleisen wrote at 05/04/2012 10:41 AM:
On May 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Laurent wrote
An interesting idea would be to count the number of times each identifier is
used in the sources, and see how many characters would be saved by using
different conventions.
That sounds like a fan
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Laurent wrote:
>
> > As sad as I am to say this, "arr[x] = 3" is read quicker by the eye than
> "(vector-set! my-integer-array the-current-iterator the-number-three)"
>
> I started saying this in 1988, when
On May 4, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Laurent wrote:
> As sad as I am to say this, "arr[x] = 3" is read quicker by the eye than
> "(vector-set! my-integer-array the-current-iterator the-number-three)"
I started saying this in 1988, when I requested from a Scheme implementor that
arrays should be treat
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On May 3, 2012, at 11:03 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>
> > 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
On May 3, 2012, at 11:03 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> 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 co
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
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,
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
