An hour ago, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> > * ... somewhat anthropomorphically ...
> >
> > See second item in the guidelines, apply reflection.
>
> Are you referring to the "concise and clear" bullet? Can you make
> your point less obliquely?
I was referring to:
Students give up readin
> 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?
We will also be producing some kind of cheat-sheet for both teachers
and students to refer to.
In part, simplify
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 wrote:
> "Use ‘argument’ for actual argumen
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
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 :
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
>
>>> Oh, I'm all in favor of skipping "identifier". But using
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
>> 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 th
> 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
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, e
> * 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
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 no
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 "
Guillaume's homework is that students get confused with all the names
for the same things. IMHO, if there are different things, then they
should have different names. The students could still confuse the
things, and that would be bad for our classes. DrRacket calling the
different things the same t
HtDP uses
(define variable expression)
(define (function-name parameter ...) function-body)
--- function header ---
(lambda (parameter ...) ... variable ...)
but it also says that globally defined variables are constants until we hit
ASL. Because then they aren't.
;; ---
I
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'
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 of
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
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.
Shou
"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
two terms for the things made by 'define' and the thi
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:
> Guil
19 matches
Mail list logo
