Two hours ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> I second Eli on a second level.
>
> As much as I think that syntactic simplicity helps a lot of languages,
> I don't think this particular kind of simplicity is a major problem or
> even worth our attention.
>
> For a while I decided to try point-free programming. You can do it in
> Racket as well as in Haskell. Then I ran across someone's rules for
> writing Scheme and he had written
>
> (lambda (n) (+ x n))
>
> is just as readable if not more than
>
> (curry + x)
>
> and often (not here) it is shorter. I tested it in my project and
> he's right.
I often reach the same conclusion, despite trying to make it
shorter...
50 minutes ago, Neil Toronto wrote:
>
> I prefer
>
> (λ (n) (+ x n))
>
> CTRL-\ is one of my best friends when I use a lot of higher-order
> functions in Racket. It just looks so clean.
I recently made some attempts to see how (λ(n) (+ x n)) feels... One
nice thing about it is that it discourages me from trying to get rid
of the parens with things like (λ n → (+ x n)).
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
