At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, this was the bug in redex that prompted me to send this
> > message (it was there for some time since it wasn't a syntax error
> > it was similar in spirit to the code I posted; thin
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, this was the bug in redex that prompted me to send this
> > > message (it was there for some time since it wasn't a syntax er
At Sat, 4 May 2013 09:15:22 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> > At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > > A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, this was the bug in redex that prompted me to send this
>
Matthew,
Out of curiosity, could you explain why you'd prefer #:else everywhere
instead of [else ...] ?
Would such an #:else allow for multi-line bodies?
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 4 May 2013 09:15:22 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:0
Okay, makes sense. Lets leave it alone.
Robby
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 4 May 2013 09:15:22 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt
> wrote:
> >
> > > At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > > > A f
(that was assuming Ryan's assertion that "[...]Matthew say that he would
have used a keyword for `else` in `cond` if he had it to do over again",
which seem to mean that even in Racket2 Matthew would prefer `#:else' over
`[else ...]' ?)
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Laurent wrote:
> Matthew,
I think the bad property is the shadowing of the "else" identifier and
Matthew's point is that one way to avoid that is to not use an identifier
at all.
The racket2 wiki currently says "try this out" so I guess it isn't
something people believe will definitely be better, but something to
explore.
Since incompatible future changes seem to be coming up a lot, I
thought I'd add one more. What do the members of this list think of
removing eqv? all of its associated machinery (e.g., memv, hasheqv,
etc.)?
(Along with this change, it would be nice if characters could all be
immediately represente
I'm curious: why do you want all characters to be eq? to each other instead
of just equal??
Robby
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> Since incompatible future changes seem to be coming up a lot, I
> thought I'd add one more. What do the members of this list think of
> remov
Just for performance. No other reason.
-Jon
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I'm curious: why do you want all characters to be eq? to each other instead
> of just equal??
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>>
>> Since incompatible future
Something about my response below has been bothering me, and I think I know
what it is: the correspondence between characters and the fixnums that
represent their code points seems -- how to put it? -- more complete if it
extends to their equality predicates. So, yeah, in addition to performance
Well, I'm not sure that I buy that motivation, since I think decisions
about what should be eq? to what should be driven by performance (and eq?
should only be used for performance) but lets put that aside.
There are some unused bits in Racket's runtime representation of values,
namely when a valu
On 2013-05-04 10:36:14 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
>The racket2 wiki currently says "try this out" so I guess it isn't
>something people believe will definitely be better, but something to
>explore.
FWIW, Clojure uses keywords for `else` so there is some experience
there:
http://cloj
Three hours ago, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> Since incompatible future changes seem to be coming up a lot, I
> thought I'd add one more. What do the members of this list think of
> removing eqv? all of its associated machinery (e.g., memv, hasheqv,
> etc.)?
+1, but unrelated to performance or whatever:
Personal opinion: performance is a dangerous motivator. Yes, it is
a necessity, but it is often abused as a reason to do something.
There's a semantic difference between eq? and equal? from the point
of view of mutability. Two objects are eq? if modifying one also
modifies the other. They are equ
The mutability argument does not hold in Racket. non eq? things can be
mutated and affect each other using chaperones and impersonators.
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM, John Gateley wrote:
> Personal opinion: performance is a dangerous motivator. Yes, it is
> a necessity, but it is often abused a
From the docs:
>>>
An impersonator is a wrapper for a value where the wrapper redirects
some of the value’s operations. Impersonators apply only to procedures,
structures for which an accessor or mutator is available, structure
types, hash tables, vectors, boxes, and prompt tags. An impersonat
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM, John Gateley wrote:
> From the docs:
>
> >>>
> An impersonator is a wrapper for a value where the wrapper redirects some
> of the value’s operations. Impersonators apply only to procedures,
> structures for which an accessor or mutator is available, structure types
I think this is a great idea.
When I learned Scheme a few years ago, the prospect of juggling three
kinds of equality was a surprise.
I felt like Kevin Kline's character in A Fish Called Wanda, who kept
asking, "What was the middle one?"
It turned out only two have really mattered practically, f
On 5/4/2013 8:26 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
But chars are not mutable so the rule "mutate one and change the other"
doesn't apply. So they might be eq? or might not. Similarly with
numbers. In the case of numbers with the current Racket, if you have an
exact integer that is close enough to zero,
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM, John Gateley wrote:
>
>
> On 5/4/2013 8:26 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> Some characters have the equal? implies eq? property (the ASCII ones and
>> maybe a few more, I'm not sure) and some don't (#\λ for example).
>
>
> Excellent point, and now I understand your effi
There will be people who see the long BNF for match in the Reference,
and flee to the Guide to try to learn by example instead. Even when
they later do read the Reference carefully, they'll be left with first
impressions of idioms from the Guide.
(I might be one of those people. Cough.)
The Guide
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM, John Gateley wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/4/2013 8:26 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> >> Some characters have the equal? implies eq? property (the ASCII ones and
> >> maybe a few more, I'm not sure) and some don't (#\λ f
Oh, right! Thanks! I'll push something that explicitly mentions underscore
and adjust the elses to use underscores.
Robby
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Greg Hendershott
wrote:
> There will be people who see the long BNF for match in the Reference,
> and flee to the Guide to try to learn by ex
24 matches
Mail list logo
