Give '{' yada '}' definable language semantics in the sense of #lang yada.
Similar to SML-NJ Quote/Antiquote but leveraging Rackets more robust
built-in language support.
So a source file could be.
==========
#lang racket
#lang {{ formula }}
(define x 3)
(define y 2)
(define z {{ log (x + y) }})
#lang {{ datalog }} ;; switch datalog language
(define result {{
ancestor(A, B) :- parent(A, B). ancestor(A, B) :- parent(A, C), D = C,
ancestor(D, B). parent(john, douglas). parent(bob, john). ancestor(A, B)?
}} )
#lang {{ formula }} ;; back to math formula
(define ans (some-procedure result {{ z^2 + 42 }}))
=======
just works.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:44 PM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org>wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> >
> > I will assert something about readability:
> >
> > Racket programs look heavy when compared with Haskell programs.
> >
> > This is probably true for Python instead of Haskell, too. It is also
> true for ML. I conjecture that part of that heaviness comes from wide
> lines, long names, deep nesting. Who knows. I don't even know how to
> measure this kind of property.
> >
> > At this point, I can express certain ideas more easily in Racket than in
> Haskell, Python, ML or whatever, which is why I am fine. But if this
> advantage ever disappeared, heaviness would definitely be a factor to weigh.
>
> +1
>
> John
>
>
> ____________________
> Racket Users list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>
>
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
