On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Leandro Facchinetti <lfacc...@jhu.edu> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > First, thank you for your time reading the article and giving feedback > about it. I acknowledged your contribution on the article, if there’s > any URL associated with your name that you’d like me to link, please let > me know. Or, if there’s any reason why you *don’t* want to be > acknowledged, just tell me and I’ll remove it.
Hi Leandro, Thanks, I'm glad the feedback was helpful. There's no link for me right now because my company is in the middle of a domain transfer, but there will be shortly -- is it okay if I email you offlist when it goes through? > You’re right in saying that you’re probably never going to directly use > any of the encodings introduced in the article. But I’m sure you can use > some of the techniques behind the encodings. For example, delaying > computations by wrapping them in functions, or receiving functions as > arguments when there isn’t enough information to act. I’d bet you even > use some of these techniques already, and you re-discovered them by > using your intuition. In that case, it’s nevertheless valuable to > identify the patterns, and to understand how they work and how to apply > them in future problems. These are good points, and I do indeed use those techniques. (Although I did not rediscover them, I read about the in various books / articles on higher-order programming.) Had you had a sentence here or there explaining that this was the point I think it would have done fine. > The *Conclusion* goes over the whole journey of the article one more > time. It specifically highlights the techniques that are the major > takeaways, and gives more examples of how to use them in different > contexts. My English teacher in high school used to teach essay style by saying "tell the reader what you're going to say, then tell it to them, then tell them what you said." In other words, your introduction and conclusion should both be summaries of the main body of the article, although introduction and conclusion may have different levels of detail. > I didn’t go into those tangents in the main matter because I wanted to > avoid loosing focus and, consequently, reader attention. Also, as you > noted, it is a long read already. In any case, do you think the article > would be more appealing to you if I had taken a different approach and > intertwined the encodings with discussions about the underlying > techniques and their uses? That would have worked well for me, yes. > I fixed the errors you pointed out. Thank you very much. English is not > my first language and I really appreciate the free copy editing :) You're welcome. :> I wouldn't have guessed you weren't a native speaker. One more for you: losing vs loosing. Lose means both (the opposite of win) and (the opposite of find). Loose means (the opposite of tight) and more rarely (to untie) or (to set free). "...without losing the point" is what you want. Many native speakers of English get this wrong and it's a pet peeve of mine. Dave > > Best. > -- > Leandro Facchinetti <lfacc...@jhu.edu> > https://www.leafac.com > GPG: 0x5925D0683DF3D583 -- 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.
