Somewhat offtopic but could the *SL languages use levenshtien distances
to find symbolically related variables? clang (a c++ compiler) does this
and I find it immensely useful.
foodar();
Error: `foodar' not found, did you mean 'foobar' ?
On 06/03/2011 11:21 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
An hour and a half ago, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
Please review these guidelines and let us know if anything is
unclear. We'd like to hear back from you within a week, by
* Start the message with the name of the construct whose constraint is
being violated, followed by a colon.
I think that falls under the don't make suggestions heading. For
the full Racket language, that would be fine -- like you say, you as a
professional computer scientist find it useful. But for novice
programmers, if they didn't in fact mean foobar they may fix it to
be foobar instead, and assume
Thanks for this document. For my own teachpacks,
I tried to make the error messages consistent by
creating all error messages in one file (htdp/error).
But you're also reducing their complexity and this
is even more important. The key is that students
must understand the problem.
A couple
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
Use ‘argument’ for actual arguments and ‘variable’ for formal
arguments and in the body of the definition.
I prefer argument and parameter name, because until ASL, they don't
vary. But it seems you prefer just variable, because you don't want
Kathi is understating it. There are TWO notions of variable. In
algebra, in f(x) = x^2, x is called a variable because it varies
across invocations of f -- which is different from the CS notion of
varies within a single invocation. So it's not even illegitimate
given the other meaning of
Where there is subtyping, same and different are not so clear.
set-foo-bar!, foo-bar, and foo? are all different things at the
level of mutator, selector, and predicate, but they are the same
thing one level of abstraction up, where they are all functions or
operators.
So we are not advocating
* Start the message with the name of the construct whose constraint is
being violated, followed by a colon.
Should give a quick example to clarify that `error' does that when
given a symbol. I can see people following this blindly and
getting
- (error 'foo foo:
Oh, I'm all in favor of skipping identifier. But using the word variable
both for global variables (i.e. constants) and for function parameters strikes
me as asking for confusion. They're introduced by different syntax, they get
their values in different ways, they have different scopes, etc.
Oh, I'm all in favor of skipping identifier. But using the word
variable both for global variables (i.e. constants) and for
function parameters strikes me as asking for confusion.
Okay. We have no evidence one way or the other. It could be
something we try to investigate. Given our
I have the same latent feelings as Stephen, but Shriram's argument has
convinced me enough to put them away until I see a problem in
practice.
Jay
2011/6/3 Stephen Bloch sbl...@adelphi.edu:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
Oh, I'm all in favor of skipping identifier.
I agree that simplifying the error messages is a good idea and will be
extremely helpful, but is there a good reason not to *teach* students
the students much of this vocabulary? Many (most?) high school
science textbooks have a Vocabulary section at the end of each
section/chapter that defines
The choice of variable is motivated by students and the desire to align
with terms they know from high school math. The distinction between
variable and identifier is too subtle for many students.
Kathi
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.com wrote:
Use ‘argument’
13 matches
Mail list logo
