Some thoughts:
Hackage includes
- making the distinction between program, library. ( plugin ?)
- an expanded set of categories
Cpan includes
- tester reviews
- the dreaded 'other' category
To improve fundability once you get to thousands of
libraries/apps/plugins/frameworks/languages
It's not to
At Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:17:59 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> * By default `make install' and `raco setup' compile collections in
> parallel on all available processors. (Use `reaco setup -j 1' to
> disable if necessary.)
"reaco" -> "raco"
_
For
On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:26 PM, David Van Horn wrote:
>>
>> * The core type system of Typed Racket has been substantially
>> revised. In particular, Typed Racket can now follow significantly
>> more sophisticated reasoning about the relationships between
>> predicates. Additionally, Typed
Agreed. Done right, I think there's a PhD in this area for a student who likes
to build and measure systems, including social networking measurements.
Robby and I had a grant that kind of was a seed for this direction: equip
planet libraries with contracts and see how it pressures others to wr
On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:26 AM, YC wrote:
> Other package systems separate the installation step from the import step
Indeed, this is the key design decision separating us from the rest of the
world, and it is not clear whether it was a good decision.
On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Jay McCarthy
YC wrote:
> Robby Findler wrote:
>
> I guess the idea is that you'd eliminate the syntactic difference
> between a planet-located library and one in the distribution and then
> require on some external source to know where the package is located?
> Something like that? How would that work?
>
> H
On Jul 28, 2010, at 10:03 AM, Dave Gurnell wrote:
> Racket's main distribution is big and takes time to compile and install. I'd
> personally be in favour of a leaner core distribution with more code in
> external packages, so I can choose what I download when I'm only interested
> in a single
To add to what Dave said, quick brain dump, hopefully not too unreadable...
Most important for me, I'd like to be able to define multiple (what I'll
call for now) repositories (like Debian "apt"). So that I can have, for
example, a repository for core official blessed Racket components, one
f
BTW, I said "repositories", roughly like they are used in Debian, for
convenience of quick braindump, but this conflates several distinct
concepts you might wish to have.
For example, you might want to have "authorities" (like "racket-core",
individual roles of person/organization authors of c
I've been vexed for a while about parenthetical syntax: I love it,
appreciate what it offers, but also recognize that no amount of
teaching or arguing alters how people perceive it. With the switch to
Racket, and our continuing interest in user interface issues, I
believe it is wise to consider an
Sounds like a great idea to me and well worth trying at a larger scale.
One technical question: why not implement this as a reader that
converts things to the usual parenthesized versions of the program and
then, like the at-exp reader, allow people to write
#lang p4p-exp racket
for the p4p ve
That does sound like the right level, in that this isn't a new
"language" -- by design.
I started out by trying to create a new syntax; then I realized I
didn't need to; then that I didn't *want* to. By then I was locked
into this file structure and didn't come up for air. I probably
didn't peel
Look up the 'paren-shape stx property.
Jay
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> That does sound like the right level, in that this isn't a new
> "language" -- by design.
>
> I started out by trying to create a new syntax; then I realized I
> didn't need to; then that
At first I thought, how is this different than Honu?
If this isn't a reader, I don't see it being fundamentally different
from Honu. (Many of the same ideas are recreated, actually. The macro
slack term, for example, is exactly what Jon does.)
I think there is a place for a non-sexp reader like t
That did the trick -- thanks!
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> Look up the 'paren-shape stx property.
>
> Jay
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
> wrote:
>> That does sound like the right level, in that this isn't a new
>> "language" -- by design.
Is the audience HtDP students/teachers, professional programmers,
hobbyists, someone else, or all of the above?
And, if the audience includes HtDP students/teachers, would all the HtDP
examples be revised to use P4P? Or would P4P be something to point to,
like, "Hey, students have to use the
Eli Barzilay wrote:
The release announcement sketch that I have so far is below. Please
send edits or (changes in order) if you see anything.
Still needed:
Ryan:
* Any public (and documented) syntax/parse & macro debugger
additions?
* macro-debugger/emit?
* GUI for rackunit
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Stephen De Gabrielle <
stephen.degabrie...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> It's not to early to think about an expanded set of categories
>
One idea is to allow module writers to add to the categories or tags so it
becomes a decentralized process, like how blogs do it these d
>From the raco exe help
pma...@mietzekatze:~/Code/eboc $
~/Applications/racket-5.0.1.1/bin/raco help exe
raco exe [ ... ]
where is one of
-o : Write executable as
--gui : Geneate GUI executable
...
Should be Generate instead of Geneate.
--
PMatos
__
With a good editor, like that of DrSceme, pardon me, RdRacket, I experience
no difficulty at all with parentheses. In fact I hardly see them. DrRacket
shows me the extent of a subsexpr very micely. I would have, may be, a
problem when parsing symbolic expressions lacking parenteses, unless, of
cour
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> At first I thought, how is this different than Honu?
I don't know anything about Honu. As far as I can tell it's the great
undead language of the Racket world. If Honu's already solved the
problem and is being actively used, great, I can st
> Is the audience HtDP students/teachers, professional programmers,
> hobbyists, someone else, or all of the above?
People new to Racket, whether students or developers.
> And, if the audience includes HtDP students/teachers, would all the
> HtDP examples be revised to use P4P?
It's way too earl
On 07/28/2010 02:19 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
At first I thought, how is this different than Honu?
I don't know anything about Honu. As far as I can tell it's the great
undead language of the Racket world. If Honu's already solved
Good, then you're not my target audience.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Jos Koot wrote:
> With a good editor, like that of DrSceme, pardon me, RdRacket, I experience
> no difficulty at all with parentheses. In fact I hardly see them. DrRacket
> shows me the extent of a subsexpr very micely. I
People already struggle with nesting. Excessive parens make
composition look much harder than it is. Ergo, my desire to remove
all unnecessary parentheses.
While agreeing on goals (integration w/ reader, etc.), I'm ultimately
less interested in H-expressions than in the surface language. That
i
Jos Koot wrote at 07/28/2010 04:00 PM:
With a good editor, like that of DrSceme, pardon me, RdRacket, I experience no
difficulty at all with parentheses.
As I believe Shriram said, the problem is the *perceptions* of people
who think that parens are bad, not whether parens are actually bad.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> As I believe Shriram said, the problem is the *perceptions* of people who
> think that parens are bad, not whether parens are actually bad.
If we step outside our (parenthetical) cubby-hole, we might be forced
to explain how we can be so su
@Jos
I believe the idea was not to convert people who like s-exprs but rather
to attract all those other programmers (including beginners) who don't
like them. (It might also help convince older CS dept people to allow
changing the intro CS course to H2DP using a non-parenthesis syntax.)
@Shrirm
I have heard students saying that they did not like Scheme syntax/parans
even after using it for a whole semester. I really, to this day, haven't
understood why they did not like parans. But given an option some people
might start liking it/using it. I feel it would be a great idea to have
P4P
I've always thought the problem was the parens. But I just realized
that besides prefix and excessive parens there is one more problem, and
that is using function application to encode structure.
E.g. (if c t f) is really structure. Shriram's syntax handles this by
adding in extra markers for re
> I believe the idea was not to convert people who like s-exprs but rather
> to attract all those other programmers (including beginners) who don't
> like them. (It might also help convince older CS dept people to allow
> changing the intro CS course to H2DP using a non-parenthesis syntax.)
Prec
Infix notation can be achieved unambiguously if you use LL(1) with
backtracking
...which I didn't want to do.
Pedagogically, it has been immensely valuable to explain to kids that
+ and - aren't some special thing, but are just mere operators -- and
so are string-append and image-overlay and s
> Infix goes beyond just arithmetic, ruby allows this sort of syntax
>
> some_list.map{...}.filter{...}.map{...}.fold_right{...}
>
> Which I find much more readable than
>
> (fold-right (map (filter (map some_list)))
That has actually been very much on my mind for a while now. Quoting
from our Fl
Everett wrote at 07/28/2010 06:06 PM:
(map (lambda (x) ...)
lst)
is more readable in the Ruby form:
map(lst) {|x| ... }
or even in Javascript with Prototype:
lst.each(function(x) {
...
});
I'll respectfully differ with that last assertion.
In my JavaScript experience the
> Even without Scheme
> syntax extension to simplify things, the simple economizing of typing ""
> instead of "});});" would help, IMHO.
>
> Here's a real-world example that I blogged earlier this year: I had just
> then typed the line of code "annosJson);});}});}".
My favorite is these two l
I will definitely use p4p next time I teach racket to beginners.
* My only qualms are about "do:" and "if:" as keywords, instead of more
function-like syntax. Looking back at what I found beautiful and elegant
and liberating about scheme the very first time I saw it:
- The whole distinction bet
Hi Ian,
> - The whole distinction between operators and functions is a lie!
Except it's not. I've run into educators who taught Scheme who
thought this way, and the accounts of Scheme they gave were nonsense.
I'm not saying this (nonsensical semantics) is a necessary consequence
of thinking li
>> - The whole distinction between operators and functions is a lie!
>>
> Except it's not. I've run into educators who taught Scheme who
> thought this way, and the accounts of Scheme they gave were nonsense.
>
Perhaps I overspoke; it was the idea that I didn't need *two* syntaxes for
calling (a
I just don't think your first example is a very good one. It's sort
of a randomly, absurdly complicated way of writing 6. The good
examples for HOFs all take them as parameters.
As for stepping, even in Scheme,
((lambda ... ...) ...)
is not something they have necessarily seen EVEN if they'v
39 matches
Mail list logo
