On 05/30/2012 03:40 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Now, lets imagine that instead of a simple `' hole, there are two
kinds of holes with an up or a down direction -- this leads to
this kind of a syntax:
(○ foo bar baz
(substring ↑ 3 8)
(string-trim ↑)
(let ([str ↑]) ↓)
(and
How about a define* that is exactly like let* without the additional
indentation level?
E.g.:
(define*
[↑ foo bar baz]
[↑ (substring ↑ 3 8)]
[str (string-trim ↑)]
[↑ (regexp-match? #rx^[a-z].*[a-z]$ str)])
(and ↑ (string-append * str *))
Laurent
Le 31 mai 2012 19:04, Neil Toronto
(sorry for the bad indentation, writing s-exps on a phone predictive
keyboard is painful...)
Le 31 mai 2012 19:21, Laurent laurent.ors...@gmail.com a écrit :
How about a define* that is exactly like let* without the additional
indentation level?
E.g.:
(define*
[↑ foo bar baz]
[↑ (substring
I was clapping through the majority of your email.
I want define* so bad.
I use compose and curry a lot (even though I know their performance
problems) because it don't have to name things.
I like the idea of the - thing with the down and up arrows. I see a
value in both arrows. I also like
On 05/31/2012 02:54 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
I was clapping through the majority of your email.
I want define* so bad.
You can use define*; just put it inside of package-begin:
(require racket/package)
(package-begin
(define* x 1)
(define* x (+ 2 x))
x)
3
I don't think
I know about package-begin, it's just not worth it if I need to bring
in another require and add package-begin
Jay
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
On 05/31/2012 02:54 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
I was clapping through the majority of your email.
I want
6 matches
Mail list logo