You are right, fix pushed: > ad4f35e Matthias Felleisen <matth...@racket-lang.org> 2013-07-16 17:53 > : > | removed #% from 'symbol table'; clarify that they are not symbols > : > M pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/style/textual.scrbl | 10 +++++---
-- Matthias On Jul 16, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > 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
