I would definitely prefer to see #lang racket
(define (dot-product l r) (for/sum ([x l] [y r]) (* x y))) over a repl example. REPL makes it look non-real. On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > A few minutes ago, Danny Yoo wrote: >> Yup; I've been doing so a little bit, fixing up some of the code >> snippets so they work on sequences rather than just on lists, and >> using "raise-argument-error" in favor of just plain error, since the >> error messages are better. For example: >> >> http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Dot_product#Racket >> http://rosettacode.org/wiki/A%2BB#Racket > > Two comments: > > * IMO having complete #lang-ed files is much better, since people get > a working template file rather than a repl demonstration. > > * -1 for the pedantics of errors etc in the second example -- I think > that the main goal of these things is for quick impressions, and for > that second example, a half-line > > (+ (read) (read)) > > is *much* better-looking. For extras like error checking, I'd defer > them for an additional extended example with more stuff in. (But in > the case of error checking, I'd probably still skip it.) > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
