On 9/21/10 12:40 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
Thanks for the feedback!- I wish conditionals were lighter weight. Maybe cond: Q0, A0, ... else: AnI expressly want the signposts for intermediate expressions. It makes clearer what you're looking at -- a question or an answer.
Can I write cond as I like it as a macro in P4P? If so, the issue goes away (for me).
Choices of names seem independent of surface syntax details, so why should they change if we change those details?1. Because names are part of surface syntax. 2. Because I'm also expermenting with the names. I want the overhead of testing to be as small as possible, and find "check-expect" pretty unwieldy. In PLAI, I called it test. Purely by coincidence, in Bootstrap, Emmanuel called it TEST [sic], because young kids have bad typing skills so the more characters they have to write, the longer it takes and the more mistakes they make. If at some point Emmanuel experiments with P4P, I can be sure the FIRST thing he'll ask for is a test: construct for testing.
So maybe we should call it test in {B,I,A}SL?
And doesn't the use of `=' and `=?' keywords violate your "Distinguishing Keywords" choice? I would expect `=:' and `=?:' for consistency.At some point I had text, which I seem to have lost, that says I made an exception for symbolic keywords. Put differently, I can claim it's already in there in that the rule only applies to keyWORDS. Take examples.rkt, rename all the = to =: and =? to =?:, and look at it. I really believe you'll agree it looks significantly uglier.
Agreed -- my issue was with the text. David _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
