On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > Some comments: > > (1) why `se-path' and not some `xexpr-path'?
The 's' was intended to be 'simple' > > (2) also, it looks bad to use a keyword to look for something that is > a symbols. How about something like: '(form input #:attr name)? > Or maybe think of each element as a kind of a selector, with > integers specifying the nth element of a list and symbols do an > assq-style search, so that becomes '(form input 0 name)? This is really quick and dirty for what I need. In my mind, the "correct" thing to do is use the sxml2 package and get real XPath queries, but this lightweight. > > (3) I really think that there should be better support for tests in > the documentation... I've played with it in the past, and I > noticed that you have the same (pretty verbose) code in both the > documentation and test (of the test). I 100% agree. Perhaps facets can make this easier. > > (4) any reason for this: > > (define (test-add-two-numbers -s>) > (define x ...) > (define xs ...) > (define y ...) > (define ys ...) > (define r0 ...) > (define k0 ...r0...) > (define i0 ...r0...) > (define r1 ...k0 i0 xs...) > (define k1 ...r1...) > (define i1 ...r1...) > (define r2 ...k1 i1 ys...) > (define n ...r2...) > ...) > > over `let*' or just `set!'? (The latter is kind of obvious since > you're writing what the set!-using code conceptually expands to > anyway...) Because I dislike set! so much, I often program in single-static assignment. It would be *really* nice if we could have define* from racket/package in any definition context, because that's more like what I really want anyways. Jay _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
