Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Two things that I would like to see in Racket2 would be return values being standard practice and the ability to return nothing. Racket has a lot of functions that return #; that's not helpful. In almost every case, there is a sensible thing to return and it would be better to return it -- for

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

I'm confused on one point. Why would a new canonical notation be preferable to, say, also fully supporting an alternative general notation (like Shriram's p4p, or a derivative thereof) or even multiple notations in addition to retaining good old s-expressions? The idea would be that you could

Re: [racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Hendrik Boom writes: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 04:52:37PM -0700, Maria Gabriela Guimarães wrote: >> >> Does Racket wants to be popular in the industry? Then Racket must focus on >> being a language-oriented programming ecosystem on a popular VM, like the >> ErlangVM, the JVM, and the

Re: [racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 04:52:37PM -0700, Maria Gabriela Guimarães wrote: > > Does Racket wants to be popular in the industry? Then Racket must focus on > being a language-oriented programming ecosystem on a popular VM, like the > ErlangVM, the JVM, and the WebAssemblyVM. This means to stop

[racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Hello, community! Let me tell a few words about the idea of transitioning Racket to a traditional syntax to gain popularity: I think this idea is a fallacy. Racket is not popular due to its s-expression syntax, because Clojure has such a syntax, and still, it seems popular. So I don't think

[racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Hello, community! Let me tell a few words about the idea of transitioning Racket to a traditional syntax to gain popularity: I think this idea is a fallacy. Racket is not popular due to its s-expression syntax, because Clojure has such a syntax, and still, it seems popular. So I don't think

Re: [racket-users] Re: Reflecting on the lexical environment at macro expansion time

Excellent! Thanks. On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:46:10PM -0700, gfb wrote: > On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 4:35:21 PM UTC-4, William J. Bowman wrote: > > > > I'm trying to write a macro that reflects on which identifiers are in > > scope in > > the environment when it runs, and on the identifiers

[racket-users] Re: Reflecting on the lexical environment at macro expansion time

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 4:35:21 PM UTC-4, William J. Bowman wrote: > > I'm trying to write a macro that reflects on which identifiers are in > scope in > the environment when it runs, and on the identifiers in scope for its > generated > code. > It should act something like this: > >

[racket-users] Reflecting on the lexical environment at macro expansion time

I'm trying to write a macro that reflects on which identifiers are in scope in the environment when it runs, and on the identifiers in scope for its generated code. It should act something like this: (define-syntax (display-env stx) (syntax-case stx () [(_) (printf "Env: ~a"

[racket-users] Second Call for Participation: ICFP 2019

** The Early Registration deadline is tomorrow! ** = Call for Participation ICFP 2019 24th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming and affiliated events August 18 - August 23, 2019 Berlin, Germany

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 8:18:24 PM UTC-4, Alexis King wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2019, at 15:32, rocketnia > > wrote: > > I find it worrying that racket2 would be kicked off with infix syntax > (something which I think of as an unnecessary sticking point in the way of > prospective macro

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:18:24 PM UTC-7, Alexis King wrote: > > So instead of thinking about all the ways Matthew’s proposed syntax is a > compromise that necessarily comes with certain downsides, think of it as a > challenge: how do we take all the lovely things we’ve come to enjoy and

Re: [racket-users] datatypes

> > Still, variant reports ‘(a . b) as a ‘pair. and that’s amazing. How is it > obtaining that information? > I just looked it up and yeah, it is pretty cool: (struct->vector '(a . b)) is doing most of the work. See the comments and implementation here:

Re: [racket-users] datatypes

> On Jul 16, 2019, at 10:36 PM, Alex Knauth wrote: > > > >> On Jul 17, 2019, at 12:16 AM, Kevin Forchione > > wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> Is there any function in Racket that will return a symbol representation of >> a value’s datatype? We can interrogate them with

Re: Backing up [was: Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2]

Thank you for replying. I didn't mean to suggest I thought these things were already happening. I don't. And I'm sorry my attempt to express gratitude by saying you had every right to decree it, sounded like I thought you actually would do it that way. I don't. I (mis?)understood that working