If you are curious about what the output looked like before, here is the 
pasterack link of some of my code http://pasterack.org/pastes/23639. Racket 
supports using brackets instead of parenthesis, but you typically only see 
it used in things like cond and let expressions. This was adding them to 
far more expressions. Other than looking odd, there was nothing wrong with 
the code (other than my own errors :)) 

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:34:04 AM UTC-4 hen...@topoi.pooq.com 
wrote:

> When I read this:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:14 PM Diego Crespo <
> > mycontributi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is really cool. Between this, a Racket linter, and an LSP, Racket 
> is
> > > seriously looking a lot better for larger teams. I ran it through some 
> of
> > > my code and I'm curious about the decision to use brackets more 
> liberally.
> > > I was surprised when it changed my methods in my classes to be 
> bracketed,
> > > as well as the init, and field expressions. I could probably get used 
> to it
> > > given enough time, but I haven't seen that style in other Racket code
> > > before.
>
> I thought, great! This will ameilorate the perennial parenthesis problem 
> by using 
> different kinds of brackets for different uses.
>
> THen I read this:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 07:06:41PM -0700, Sorawee Porncharoenwase wrote:
> > Don't get used to it. It's a bug!
> > 
> > Fixed in
> > 
> https://github.com/sorawee/fmt/commit/e056aee1e9a3ea0a72a4c85075426fa76f037852
> .
> > Thanks for the report!
>
> and was disappointed.
>
> The I started wondering -- just what did it look like, that the use of 
> different 
> brackets would be considered a problem?
>
> -- 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/f9b2611c-105b-4594-acb7-1af1a2992d3en%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to