[Combined reply]
Two days ago, Jon Rafkind wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 04:07 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> >> Having expressions come from the bottom, using the down arrow, seems
> >> sort of wierd.
> > Here's a concrete example:
> >
> > (○ (let ([x 10]) ↓)
> > (for ([i (in-range x)]) ↓)
> >
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 wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 02:54 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>>
>> I was clapping through the majority of your email.
>>
>> I want define* so
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 thin
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 Jon
(sorry for the bad indentation, writing s-exps on a phone predictive
keyboard is painful...)
Le 31 mai 2012 19:21, "Laurent" a écrit :
> How about a define* that is exactly like let* without the additional
> indentation level?
> E.g.:
>
> (define*
> [↑ "foo bar baz"]
> [↑ (substring ↑ 3 8)]
> [st
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" a éc
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 ↑]) ↓)
On 05/30/2012 04:07 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
>> Having expressions come from the bottom, using the down arrow, seems
>> sort of wierd.
> Here's a concrete example:
>
> (○ (let ([x 10]) ↓)
> (for ([i (in-range x)]) ↓)
> (for ([j (in-range i)]) ↓)
> ...etc...)
>
> Do you have a conc
A few minutes ago, Jon Rafkind wrote:
> 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"
> > (substrin
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 ↑]
I'm going to ramble a bit about organizing code, trying to look for an
idea for a good solution -- so spread a few kgs of salt over the
following (if you care to read it).
The problem that I'm talking about has several manifestations. The
most obvious one is code-drift towards the RHS. A less ob
11 matches
Mail list logo
