8 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I am too buried in syntax-certificate work at the moment to follow
> along reply properly, but for what it's worth, I have a very
> different proposal in mind: a single file can have multiple loadable
> things (maybe "modulets"), and a program `main' should be
Three minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> > 2. BTW, `-um- foo.rkt' would *not* be the same as `-R foo.rkt main',
> > because `-m' is disconnected from a specific module. That makes it
> > still have some use as a more generic th
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> 2. BTW, `-um- foo.rkt' would *not* be the same as `-R foo.rkt main',
> because `-m' is disconnected from a specific module. That makes it
> still have some use as a more generic thing, but you pay for that
> with the verbosity of an e
I am too buried in syntax-certificate work at the moment to follow
along reply properly, but for what it's worth, I have a very different
proposal in mind: a single file can have multiple loadable things
(maybe "modulets"), and a program `main' should be one of those
loadable things --- not an expo
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> An hour ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> > Three minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Racketish name would be #%main, wouldn't it?
>> >
>> > Yes. But the problem is that `#%f
An hour ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > Three minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> >>
> >> The Racketish name would be #%main, wouldn't it?
> >
> > Yes. But the problem is that `#%foo' names are intended to be
> > things that you don't write in
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Three minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>>
>> The Racketish name would be #%main, wouldn't it?
>
> Yes. But the problem is that `#%foo' names are intended to be things
> that you don't write in end-user code, only if you implement a new
> la
8 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
> > This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
>
> As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a
> slippery slope to a proliferation of all-uppercase variable names...
> (B
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
>>
>> This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
>
> As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a slippery
> slope to a proliferation of all-uppercase v
Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a slippery
slope to a proliferation of all-uppercase variable names... (By
convention, I use all-uppercase for patter
10 matches
Mail list logo
