I cited this as an (silly) example of making it even shorter.
(If Matthew says it's all easy to do, I will withdraw my objections.)
On Apr 5, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
Something like that seems okay. I thought the proposal was for:
(define (ufo #:posn p #:vel [vel (velocity 0 0)]))
to be a define-struct (because it has no body).
Robby
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]
> wrote:
While I agree with your sentiment -- not changing so much right now
--
I disagree with the overall evaluation. I think
(define-struct ufo moving-object (#posn p #vel (velocity 0 0)))
very appealing per se, also with the even shorter syntax of using
just
define. The regularity of having both function headers and struct
headers
use the same grammar is great. (It may even pacify the grumpy old
men of
Scheme standards.) I just don't think we're ready for it now if we
want
lots of files to start with #lang racket.
-- Matthias
On Apr 5, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
I dislike this change. Brainfuck is very lightweight language too
(by
the measures of lightweightness I've seen here recently), lets not
forget.
In more politic words, it seems like making function definitions and
structure definitions look so similar to each other is just asking
Racket programmers to get confused.
Robby
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]
>
wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
On Apr 4, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Apr 3, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
I like
(define-struct (a x y) #:super b)
much better than the current
(define-struct (a b) (x y))
but I'm not sure that it's worth changing.
The issue I brought up in Boston was the 'heaviness' of the
looks of
our code, which to some extent is caused by long names. Going
from
(make-a 0 1) to (a 0 1) is a good weight loss. The above seems to
call for trouble for a minor advantage.
I think that there *is* some weight loss here too -- one that is
similar to loss of moving from `mzlib/kw' to the current syntax.
Specifically, there's a whole bunch of struct features that you
get
with no need to remember anything more than "use `define-struct'
instead of `struct'". It's also the same kind of win as "use
`for/*'
instead of `let'" that makes the current iterators so good (as
opposed
to the srfi or the swindle or the CL syntaxes).
Yes, using a plain function header to specify structures (without
body)
is very nice because you get all these things (keywords,
initialization)
for free. But then we're back to the balance of change vs getting
Racket
out. -- Matthias
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
