On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
p.s. On second thought, for structs you want two constructors:
-- one that takes positional arguments
-- one that takes keyword arguments
My intent was that you could use both positional and keyword arguments
Here's a simple demo for procedures if you want to try it out:
https://gist.github.com/Metaxal/5851215
Laurent
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Laurent laurent.ors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
p.s. On second
Actually I realize I'd like something exactly like `instantiate'.
If instantiate used keywords instead of bindings, and removing the
`instantiate' word, we would then even have the exact same syntax for class
instantiation and procedure call:
(define nemo (fish% Nemo #:age 3)) ; instantiates
I like this idea a lot. -- Matthias
On Jun 17, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Laurent wrote:
Actually I realize I'd like something exactly like `instantiate'.
If instantiate used keywords instead of bindings, and removing the
`instantiate' word, we would then even have the exact same syntax for class
p.s. On second thought, for structs you want two constructors:
-- one that takes positional arguments
-- one that takes keyword arguments
but perhaps 'new' can play the role for both:
(new fisht #:name Nemo #:weight 700)
and
(new fisht% #:name Nemo #:weight 700)
might work.
On Jun
Laurent wrote at 06/07/2013 02:12 AM:
What I'd really like, for the sake of flexibility / ease of use, is to
have no explicit keyword argument, but all arguments are implicit
ones, so
that you can call a function by mixing by position and by name as you
like,
without having specified so in
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Thu, 9 May 2013 16:22:54 +0200, Laurent wrote:
I've always wondered why the syntax of keywords implied two elements: the
#:keyword and the identifier.
I find that quite heavy for procedure headers, and most of the
At Thu, 9 May 2013 16:22:54 +0200, Laurent wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
Anything is open for discussion, but speaking for myself, I'm not
interested in revisiting keyword syntax or case sensitivity.
I've always wondered why the syntax
8 matches
Mail list logo
