I remember those classes as a student, to be honest I didn't really actually
started to learn till after I'd left undergraduate.
Don't get me wrong, I know how frustrating syntax/semantics nuances can be.
I've been reflecting on the idea of existential keywords the past couple days
and have rea
The Clan of Colon Keywords was willing to honor a truce.
I think for people coming from other languages with :keywords, Racket's
#:keywords help to signal that they are not anything like how :keywords are
usually used.
I'm sure there are relatively better justifications for pound-colon than
Upon some reflection, I realized that the existential proposal as outlined in
my earlier reply introduces an ambiguity into the keyword system. Since
keywords can be used in any position relative to any actual positional
arguments, there'd be no way to distinguish an existential keyword followed
I don't really have a horse in this race. My position is very similar to Alexis
which is why I didn't vote in the poll too. When I first arrived to Racket the
#: syntax made me go "what in the world?" Since then I've grown to appreciate
the reasoning behind the deliberate eye catching keyword sy
Coming late to this.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:50:41 -0400, Neil Van Dyke
wrote:
>We are conducting a highly scientific poll.
>
>The question we want to answer is whether people would like for the
>Racket standard languages to have symbols that begin with the colon
>character (except for the sym
A fresh syntax wouldn't have to worry about breaking old code.
I've written at least two variations on a new `defn` and/or `def`
syntax [1][2]. I bet other people have, too.
That topic could be its own long thread. It would probably include
many good ideas. Of course it would probably become a "R
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:17:59 AM UTC, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Note that, unlike some languages, I *don't* want `x` and `y` to be
> optionally positional -- only keyworded.
In my opinion, supplying a default value should make an argument implicitly
keywordable. So (define (a b c (d 3) (e
Nota Poin wrote on 11/08/2015 08:41 PM:
What I want is implicit keyword names for arguments with defaults. So
instead of:
(define (foo #:bar? (bar? #f) #:foo (foo 42) #:some-variable-name
(some-variable-name 3)) ...)
I'd like a variation on this. Since I (and lots of existing Racket
code
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:50:44 PM UTC, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> (foo :abc 1 :xyx 42)
What I want is implicit keyword names for arguments with defaults. So instead
of:
(define (foo #:bar? (bar? #f) #:foo (foo 42) #:some-variable-name
(some-variable-name 3)) ...)
and (foo #:bar? #t
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> Surely there are books about this subject. Does anyone have any
> recommendations for future self?
This course has a module on voting theory:
https://www.coursera.org/course/mathphil
The course is not heavy-handed and can be taken ev
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Jack Firth wrote:
> Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "Which do you prefer,
> #:keyword or :keyword?" with options like "strongly prefer x", "prefer x",
> "indifferent", "prefer y", "strongly prefer y", rather than two different
> 1-10 scales.
>
While
Perhaps it would have been better phrased as "Which do you prefer, #:keyword or
:keyword?" with options like "strongly prefer x", "prefer x", "indifferent",
"prefer y", "strongly prefer y", rather than two different 1-10 scales.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo
12 matches
Mail list logo
