I'm using version 5.0.1.5--2010-09-03 (I'm not using the latest because some
tests are broken in the latest). If I run the stepper tests with no
debugging and no profiling, or with just debugging, all the tests pass. But
if I run the tests with debugging and profiling turned on, some tests fail.
I
+1,
In macro definitions that produce code with bodies, I almost by routine
write (let () etc ...)
There may be a problem including the bodies of begin forms, for they may be
lifted out.
Jos
> -Original Message-
> From: dev-boun...@racket-lang.org
> [mailto:dev-boun...@racket-lang.org]
Ditto.
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> I too am in favor of when, unless, and cond being definition contexts.
>
> +1.
>
> I routinely wrap cond/when in let () for just that purpose.
> ___
On Oct 10, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> I too am in favor of when, unless, and cond being definition contexts.
+1.
I routinely wrap cond/when in let () for just that purpose.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.
I too am in favor of when, unless, and cond being definition contexts.
But I don't understand what this fragment is supposed to illustrate.
If the body of a 'when' were a definition context, we'd get this being
the same as something like this, which seems to work exactly as it
should:
Welcome to
A few seconds ago, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> 2010/10/10 Eli Barzilay :
> > I like mixing definitions and expressions -- maybe the bodies of
> > `cond' etc should also allow it?
>
> In
>
> > (define (foo x)
> > (when (even? x) (define x (add1 x)) (printf "increment\n"))
> > x)
>
> is the
2010/10/10 Eli Barzilay :
> I like mixing definitions and expressions -- maybe the bodies of
> `cond' etc should also allow it?
In
> (define (foo x)
> (when (even? x) (define x (add1 x)) (printf "increment\n"))
> x)
is the scope of the definition (define x ...) the entire body of foo ?
-
I like mixing definitions and expressions -- maybe the bodies of
`cond' etc should also allow it?
The only downside I see is the possible confusion in somthing like
(define (foo x)
(when (even? x) (define x (add1 x)) (printf "increment\n"))
x)
;; why isn't this working?
but that seem
The release process for v5.0.2 will begin in about one week. This
means that the `release' branch will be created -- please make sure that
code that you're responsible for is as stable as possible, and let me
know if there is any new work that should not be included in this
release.
>> NOW
Jay McCarthy wrote at 10/10/2010 10:58 AM:
So overall I think that #true and #false are good there [in teaching languages]
and I don't see any problem with them being available elsewhere... just not the
default.
FWIW, I would occasionally like to spell out "#true" and "#false" in my
code. M
I agree. As far as students go, I've found that my PLAI students
(juniors) adapted very fast to #t and #f from the teaching languages
and that even they accidentally try to quote true and false within the
single week I teach them with the student languages. So overall I
think that #true and #false
1. I consider concise readability as superior to short unreadability. In this
spirit, #true and #false are an improvement. I understand that more perfect
people than myself will never conflate #t with #f, but since it happened to
Matthew, I am happy not be alone. (And that happened before I tur
I do wish that "true" and "false" had the same number of letters. (And
there is such a parameter. See Matthew's original message for the
exact name.)
Robby
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Matthew Flatt wrote at 10/10/2010 09:39 AM:
>>
>> Any other opinions?
>>
>
> No stro
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Any other opinions?
Personally, I find #true and #false visually ugly, and I also agree
with Eli's feelings on terseness. I don't think I've ever
accidentally confused #t and #f personally, so I'm not in favor of
changing outside of the stu
Matthew Flatt wrote at 10/10/2010 09:39 AM:
Any other opinions?
No strong opinion, but misc. comments:
* When working data in sexps a lot, "#f" taking a lot less space than
"#false" can make things a lot more readable. Imagine, for example, a
vector of 20 small integers and false values
I probably wasn't clear enough in my original message, but I meant
that to be a vote for #true and #false.
Robby
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:03:57 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> > An even more common use of `write', I think, is to print code. If
At Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:03:57 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > An even more common use of `write', I think, is to print code. If we
> > switch to `#true' and `#false' as the default forms of the constants, I
> > think we want all those uses of "~.s" that you recently fixed up to
> > print with `#true'
17 matches
Mail list logo
