Hello,
I’ve been working with finite fields in racket, and although I solved my actual
problem (numbers were too large for (modulo (expt)), using modular-expt, I had
a question when I looked at modulo-expt, which uses what appeared to be infix
operators:
> (define (modular-expt* n a b)
(cond [(b . < . 0) (raise-argument-error 'modular-expt "Natural" 1 a b n)]
[(b . = . 0) (if (n . = . 1) 0 1)]
…
Is there some actual advantage to using infix operators in racket, other than
readability for those not used to LISP-like languages? I actually found it
highly confusing at first, as I couldn’t find much documentation describing
this usage
(https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/Pairs__Lists__and_Racket_Syntax.html gives
only a brief mention at the end).
- johnk
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/3A3DE037-90EF-47E5-91C5-C948647B5B94%40gmail.com.
