I do wish that "true" and "false" had the same number of letters. (And there is such a parameter. See Matthew's original message for the exact name.)
Robby On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > Matthew Flatt wrote at 10/10/2010 09:39 AM: >> >> Any other opinions? >> > > No strong opinion, but misc. comments: > > * When working data in sexps a lot, "#f" taking a lot less space than > "#false" can make things a lot more readable. Imagine, for example, a > vector of 20 small integers and false values intermixed. > > * "#f" is often used to represent something like ``none'' or ``null'' rather > than ``false'', so spelling it out as "#false" will take some readjustment > for some people. > > * "#true" and "#false" do have the advantage of appearing more like a > conventional friendly language. > > * Regarding friendly languages "#true" and "#false" have the unfriendly "#" > (ugly, visually dominating, harder to type, longer). Some conventional > programmers will prefer "#f" because, although not as friendly as "false", > it's more terse. > > * It's nice that "#t" and "#f" are the same length, for lining things up, > such as in matrices. > > * "#t" and "#f" can be hard to distinguish from each other visually. Look > at a vector of mixed "#t" and "#f" values, for example. > > * "#t" and "#f" should always be synonymous with "#true" and "#false", for > compatibility with other Racket and Scheme code. > > * There should be a print parameter to force printing as "#t" and "#f", for > interoperation with Schemes. > > -- > http://www.neilvandyke.org/ > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
