Thanks, all. Points well taken and I'll go back to writing lambda (x). I appreciate the pointer to those packages, though.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 01:22:42PM -0800, David Storrs wrote: > > The 'thunk' procedure is really useful and is sprinkled liberally through > > my code because it saves keystrokes / is clearer than (lambda () ...). I > > often find myself writing (lambda (x) ...) for something and wishing that > > there was an equivalent of 'thunk' for that. > > > > Is there? If not, what would be a good name for it that I could use to > > create a macro for it? My current suggestion is 'thwonk', but I figured > > I'd bounce it off other people first. > > Let's say te nake is thonk. > > You mean to write (thonk c ...) instead of (lambda (c) ...)? > > Just to save a pair of parentheses? I'd say the real problem is that > lambda is six letters long. maybe you want aininfoc operator, like > (c +> ...) > But I don't know who you'd get that into a macro. > > -- hendrik > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Racket Users" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
