I had some thoughts about Racket's documentation compared to PHP's last
night, so this morning I wrote up a blog post about it.
Here is the link:
http://www.neptic.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-design-documentation/
Below, for your convenience, is the complete text copy-pasted in.
Thanks,
-Everett
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Everett Morse we...@unoc.net wrote:
I had some thoughts about Racket's documentation compared to PHP's last
night, so this morning I wrote up a blog post about it.
Here is the link:
http://www.neptic.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-design-documentation/
Below, for
Jay McCarthy wrote:
What do you think is missing from these tutorials:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/index.html
http://docs.racket-lang.org/continue/index.html
http://docs.racket-lang.org/more/index.html
In particular, Quick tries to present the essence of the languages.
Maybe the
[Sorry, I planned on some short and concrete description, but ended
writing a blog-post-like piece of text... FWIW, I would love it if
someone takes this on seriously.]
On Sep 21, Everett Morse wrote:
I had some thoughts about Racket's documentation compared to PHP's
last night, so this
On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
And a side-comment -- having an on-line documentation is probably
going to make lots of people who follow the repository happy, since
compiling it is where the biggest chunk of time is spent.
No, no. See my comment. The improvements to the
Consider a beginner file with:
(define-struct boa (name length))
Student writes a template/function with parameter named a-boa, but
misspells one occurrence, writing boa instead of a-boa.
(define (feed a-boa)
(make-boa (boa-name a-boa)
(boa-length boa)))
Their tests then fail
On Sep 21, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
And a side-comment -- having an on-line documentation is probably
going to make lots of people who follow the repository happy,
since compiling it is where the biggest chunk of time is spent.
No, no.
7 matches
Mail list logo
