That's correct. But I am willing to accept this small inaccuracy to remind readers of the basic idea -- Matthias
On Jul 16, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Gustavo Massaccesi <gust...@oma.org.ar> wrote: > Hi! I was reading the draft of the style guide in the file > [plt]/pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/style/textual.scrbl > (link: > http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/blob/b2ebb0a28bf8136e75cd98316c22fe54c30eacb2:/pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/style/textual.scrbl > ) > > In the lines 388 - 348, there is a list of special characters that > mark by convention special kind of symbols. In my opinion, "#:" > doesn't belong to that list, or at least it needs a special remark. > > For example, "?" marks predicates, but "one?" is a normal symbol and > nothing in the language forces or assumes that it's a predicate. In > particular "(define one? 5)" is a legal Racket instruction, in spite > it is of extremely bad style. > > But "#:" is different. It creates a special kind of data. If I > understand correctly at the kernel level the keyword don't have a > special representation. But at the Racket level there is a reader > extension for #: and write/print/display show the keywords with #: . > And many of the constructs of the language treat the keywords in a > special way, for example lambda, apply, ... > > Gustavo > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
