On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Nota Poin <notap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> at-exp really is a fascinating language,
It's not a language in itself, it's a meta-language, which modifies the
actual language with the @-form syntax.
> but if a (flatten) isn't any more computationally expensive, you can
> just splice all the lists at the end and use the regular racket
> language. Either way would work fine, I suspect.
This sounds confused. The purpose of the at-exp language is just to
make it easier to write code with a lot of text, which is what you do.
The scribble/text language that was mentioned is based on the same
@-form syntax, and it adds the functionality of outputting strings (and
other primitive values), with lists being scanned recursively (so it's
essentially flattening everything), and it outputs nothing for #f and
void, which makes it easy to embed `and`s and `when`s without the usual
gymnastics involved in splicing the results back into a single-level
list.
--
((x=>x(x))(x=>x(x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
