This format is a pretty good idea. I like how HTDP pushes it from the
beginning. But is something like this a good idea?
Welcome to DrRacket, version 5.0 [3m].
Language: racket; memory limit: 1024 MB.
> (require user/help)
> (help foo)
No help available.
> (help help)
help
(or (name -> void) (void -> void))
(Displays help for the name of a procedure or lists procedure names
with help available)
syntax
> (define/help inc
(number -> number)
(increments a number)
(λ(n)
(+ 1 n)))
> (help inc)
inc
(number -> number)
(increments a number)
(λ (n) ...)
>
Implementation omitted because I'm sure it is pretty clear what's
going on. I kind of like it as a way to loosely enforce these
questions asked by David Van Horn (and HtDP etc).
1) How does anyone here feel about this?
2) If you like it, how could I improve the comment section? Right now
it reads syntax, which messes with commas etc.
It's kind of interesting to me that even though I only provide
"define/help" and "help" the procedures which these macros expand to
work properly even though the (require ...) statement
doesn't import those identifiers.
~ Deren
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:53 PM, David Van Horn <dvanh...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On 9/8/10 11:35 PM, Scott Hickey wrote:
>>
>> I just like to see my coding style mature from
>> beginner to advanced beginner :)
>
> Purpose statement? Contract? Examples?
>
> David
> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
