Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:35:22PM -0700, Jordan Johnson wrote: > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Greg Hendershott > wrote: > > Keyword arguments: Although I'm comfortable in the #: camp, I can > > understand people preferring :foo over #:foo for the reason that it is >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > Keyword arguments: Although I'm comfortable in the #: camp, I can > understand people preferring :foo over #:foo for the reason that it is > faster to type. #: requires two shifted chars. If you touch type you >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Greg Hendershott wrote on 10/24/2015 10:43 AM: p.s. If people read that (even just section 7.7), and there's still a debate? Then probably the only resolution would be a compromise that leaves everyone equally unhappy. Like say :#:keyword:#: ;) I linked the paper on Oct 15, though it got lost

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > but seriously Asumu mentioned > Flatt and Barzilay's "Keyword and optional arguments in PLT Scheme" on > irc last night: > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.162.17 > The paper illuminates the

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On 10/23/2015 11:30 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > If you touch type you > use both left and right shift keys O_o. ...but only the right shift key in dvorak, but seriously Asumu mentioned Flatt and Barzilay's "Keyword and optional arguments in PLT Scheme" on irc last night:

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:58:30PM -0400, Anthony Carrico wrote: On 10/23/2015 11:30 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: If you touch type you use both left and right shift keys O_o. ...but only the right shift key in dvorak For greater keyboard layout awareness, here is a more complete assessment

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Keyword arguments: Although I'm comfortable in the #: camp, I can understand people preferring :foo over #:foo for the reason that it is faster to type. #: requires two shifted chars. If you touch type you use both left and right shift keys O_o. In that respect #: is even more awkward a finger

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Leif Andersen wrote: > > I am genuinely surprised :keyword saw so much support and that change > was so attractive to people. > > That's because of the questions you asked. I saw those questions and said > to myself: "Self, I don't care

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

So, I thought about doing that. Except that I ended up not, because voting 5/5/0 doesn't properly capture my feelings. 5/5/0 seems more like a, I see pros and cons with both sides, but I fundamentally care some way or the other which way this goes. My opinion really is that this is a silly

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Leif Andersen > wrote: > > > I am genuinely surprised :keyword saw so much support and that change >> was so attractive to people. >> >> That's because of the

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

> I am genuinely surprised :keyword saw so much support and that change was so attractive to people. That's because of the questions you asked. I saw those questions and said to myself: "Self, I don't care enough about this debate enough to even really fill out these questions." (Although if you

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I agree. I think that :xyz doesn't look special enough, and with #:xyz is clear that the reader is doing something special. Gustavo On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Laurent wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Deren Dohoda > wrote: >> >> I

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Matthias Felleisen writes: > [I am using past tense because I am sure Fortran is kind of dead > now :-).] There are probably more active Fortran programmers than active Racket programmers at this time. > People wish to conduct a discourse about a domain in the language > of their domain,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

> Code snippets get detached from `#lang` lines all the time, especially in > sometimes-terse 'social media' like email, chat, blogs, Twitter, etc. Although this can be a problem, I think it's already a problem in Racket -- and generally. Example: Spend time answering a Racket question on Stack

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Matthias Felleisen writes: > > For me the strongest point of Racket is that it encourages linguistic > > diversity while maintaining (nearly enforcing) interoperability. My > > dream language environment would go one step further and provide a > > second more low-level interoperability layer

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Oct 16, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > Matthias Felleisen writes: > >>> For me the strongest point of Racket is that it encourages linguistic >>> diversity while maintaining (nearly enforcing) interoperability. My >>> dream language environment would

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

[ message quoted in reversed for obvious reasons ] On Oct 16, 2015, at 7:18 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > Matthias Felleisen writes: >> People wish to conduct a discourse about a domain in the language >> of their domain, and the more we enable the creation of

Re: Fortran (Was: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords)

This would indeed fit into the "full spectrum" part of the Racket "stack" as presented in the manifesto and especially the presentation as given at (fifth RacketCon). -- Matthias On Oct 15, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Regarding Fortran, about 3

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:24:06PM +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote: Matthias Felleisen writes: > > For me the strongest point of Racket is that it encourages linguistic > > diversity while maintaining (nearly enforcing) interoperability. My > > dream language environment would go one step further

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:21:09AM -0600, William G Hatch wrote: > > FYI, I'm a grad student at Utah with Matthew, and my current project > is a #lang pre-racket that compiles to C. It hasn't really gotten off > the ground yet because I've been busy with classes and fellowship > applications,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

While were at it, can we make :long-keyword [3] => :long-keyword [long-keyword 3] ? And can we make define => =, and = => == ? In general, can we "Huffman encode" forms by average form usage frequency? (But seriously, the first one would be nice) On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Gustavo

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote: > I don't have a very strong opinion, it seems like convenient syntax, but > half of what draws me to stick with lisps is the low amount of syntax. > Pound-colon has a strong line noise quality to it which colons lack,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I don't have a very strong opinion, it seems like convenient syntax, but half of what draws me to stick with lisps is the low amount of syntax. Pound-colon has a strong line noise quality to it which colons lack, I admit. But they also have an explicit feel which colons lack. Inclusion or

Fortran (Was: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords)

Regarding Fortran, about 3 weeks ago, I looked into implementing a `#lang fortran77` or `#lang fortran90`. Functionality-wise, it looks doable; speed-wise, not so great. I have no further need for this, but it's an interesting practical/hobby project someone might want to pursue. (For easy

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:18:22PM -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: ... ... > A common reason for fragmentation is the creation and use of function > libraries. For example, a Fortran programmer in the field of physical > simulations used different function libraries than one in commercial >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Hendrik Boom wrote on 10/15/2015 01:25 PM: I'd like to ask: What do the Scheme standards say about this? What do Lisp standards say about this? I don't know the answers to these questons, though maybe I should, and Racket is not a standard Scheme, but I think these answers should at least

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: > > (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f > > IIRC the common lisp keywords you admire are symbols. I think that the > proposed syntax confuses symbols and

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > BTW, in response to an earlier comment regarding fragmentation, I think that > `#lang foo-reader racket` and `#lang foo-replacing-racket-reader` are > equivalent in immediate fragmentation effect. What's more

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

In case I'm being to oblique, I'm trying to point out that: (equal? '#:test ':test) ; -> #f which means that the proposal will certainly break things. -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:48:17AM +0200, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 04:37 PM: > >> > >> You can use > >> #lang colon-kw racket > >> for :kw syntax, and > >> #lang kw-colon racket >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f IIRC the common lisp keywords you admire are symbols. I think that the proposed syntax confuses symbols and keywords, which are distinct types. -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On 10/15/2015 03:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: > > (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f err... (symbol? '#:test) ; -> #f -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users"

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On 10/15/2015 03:39 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > On 10/15/2015 03:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: >> I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: >> >> (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f > > err... (symbol? '#:test) ; -> #f > Yes. I found this in the Common Lisp Hyperspec:

[racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

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 symbol `:`) to read the same has keywords that begin with pound-colon. That is, when

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Chicken scheme has an option for that: http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Non-standard%20read%20syntax#keyword I'm a fan; it makes the code pretty pleasant to read. martin On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jukka Tuominen < jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi> wrote: > Yoda like that would, but to me it

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Racket has an option for that. It's a meta-language that I made this morning. #lang colon-kw racket You can use it for one or two files without messing up everything else. > On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Martin DeMello wrote: > > Chicken scheme has an option for

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I find `keyword:` kinda pretty, too (I first used them in Smalltalk, though Smalltalk syntax takes it a huge step further). But, IIRC, it was Joe Marshall who pointed out (one of the past times keywords were discussed) that `:keyword`s are visually less ambiguous in Lisp syntax when use of a

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Yoda like that would, but to me it looks backwards. How about...? key: value br, jukka UX Manager :) Sent from my iPhone > On 14.10.2015, at 18.50, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > We are conducting a highly scientific poll. > > The question we want to answer is whether people

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I briefly considered including Objective-C/Smalltalk style keywords in the form too. I haven't extensively programmed with them, but I find them kind of beautiful. Jay On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Jukka Tuominen wrote: > Yoda like that would, but to me it

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

You can use #lang colon-kw racket for :kw syntax, and #lang kw-colon racket for kw: syntax. They are compose-able as well, so you can use #lang colon-kw kw-colon racket to let :kw and kw: both work in the same file. > On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Alex Knauth wrote: > >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 04:37 PM: You can use #lang colon-kw racket for :kw syntax, and #lang kw-colon racket for kw: syntax. If the standard `#lang racket` and `#lang racket/base` don't support `:keyword` out of the box -- but instead some alternative reader or forked #lang is

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > I very much appreciate diligence about backward-compatibility, but I'm not > actually aware of any Racket code that actually uses colon-symbol for any > purpose other than as a keyword. And the ones that use

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 05:57 PM: On Oct 14, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke > wrote: I very much appreciate diligence about backward-compatibility, but I'm not actually aware of any Racket code that actually uses colon-symbol for

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Something for consideration in Racket 2? I've gotten used #:keywords, but initially felt that they were inelegant. Dan -- 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

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 04:37 PM: >> >> You can use >> #lang colon-kw racket >> for :kw syntax, and >> #lang kw-colon racket >> for kw: syntax. > > > If the standard `#lang racket` and `#lang racket/base` don't

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:45:46 PM UTC-7, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 05:57 PM: > > > > > It's not worth changing the default for all of racket just to avoid > > putting #lang colon-kw racket at the top of a program. > > > > I currently have the opposite

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

> It's not "forking the language", it's turning into an opt-in library. The > huge difference between the colon-kw language mixin and that paddle/base > language is that the form isn't a language. It can be provided to any > language. If your paddle/base language didn't provide colon keywords,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I love this message. Highlight of my day. :) On Wednesday, October 14, 2015, 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

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Alexis King wrote: > I can’t wait until all of my programs look like this at the top: Haskellers are living the dream. For example: https://github.com/ekmett/lens/blob/master/src/Control/Lens/Tuple.hs -- You received this message