On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Mon, 6 May 2013 07:02:47 -0600, Jay McCarthy wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
3. And a side-comment: I hope that there will be something better
than actual `racket2'
On Monday, May 6, 2013, Jay McCarthy wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Matthew Flatt
mfl...@cs.utah.edujavascript:;
wrote:
At Mon, 6 May 2013 07:02:47 -0600, Jay McCarthy wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Matthew Flatt
mfl...@cs.utah.edujavascript:;
wrote:
3. And a
More generally, the role of `else' in `cond' is to select a particular
production in the grammar of `cond' clauses, and keywords are normally
the right way to do that in Racket. Keywords are normally right because
they are syntactically distinct from expressions --- and so using a
keyword avoids
As a generalization, maybe Racket2 could keep the invariant `#:else' is
the absorbing (default) case of any multi-arm form ?
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
More generally, the role of `else' in `cond' is to select a particular
production in the grammar
Keywords are normally right because
they are syntactically distinct from expressions --- and so using a
keyword avoids various potential ambiguities and sources of confusion.
Isn't this only true for default bindings of #%datum? It seems like
macros which assume this lose compatibility with
On 05/05/2013 12:49 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
Keywords are normally right because
they are syntactically distinct from expressions --- and so using a
keyword avoids various potential ambiguities and sources of confusion.
Isn't this only true for default bindings of #%datum? It seems like
macros
At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
FWIW, this was the bug in redex that prompted me to send this
message (it was there for some time since it wasn't a syntax error
it was similar in spirit to the code I posted; things broke
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
FWIW, this was the bug in redex that prompted me to send this
message (it was there for some time since it wasn't a
At Sat, 4 May 2013 09:15:22 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
FWIW, this was the bug in redex that prompted me to send
Matthew,
Out of curiosity, could you explain why you'd prefer #:else everywhere
instead of [else ...] ?
Would such an #:else allow for multi-line bodies?
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Sat, 4 May 2013 09:15:22 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sat,
Okay, makes sense. Lets leave it alone.
Robby
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Sat, 4 May 2013 09:15:22 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu
wrote:
At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli
(that was assuming Ryan's assertion that [...]Matthew say that he would
have used a keyword for `else` in `cond` if he had it to do over again,
which seem to mean that even in Racket2 Matthew would prefer `#:else' over
`[else ...]' ?)
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Laurent
I think the bad property is the shadowing of the else identifier and
Matthew's point is that one way to avoid that is to not use an identifier
at all.
The racket2 wiki currently says try this out so I guess it isn't
something people believe will definitely be better, but something to
explore.
On 2013-05-04 10:36:14 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
The racket2 wiki currently says try this out so I guess it isn't
something people believe will definitely be better, but something to
explore.
FWIW, Clojure uses keywords for `else` so there is some experience
there:
There will be people who see the long BNF for match in the Reference,
and flee to the Guide to try to learn by example instead. Even when
they later do read the Reference carefully, they'll be left with first
impressions of idioms from the Guide.
(I might be one of those people. Cough.)
The
Oh, right! Thanks! I'll push something that explicitly mentions underscore
and adjust the elses to use underscores.
Robby
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Greg Hendershott
greghendersh...@gmail.comwrote:
There will be people who see the long BNF for match in the Reference,
and flee to the
That one is twisted indeed, if you forget about how `else' must be written
in `match' (which I had, not using match too much).
I was thinking about issuing a warning when a syntax-parameter gets
shadowed (if that is even catchable).
Then suddenly I realized Racket doesn't do warnings. (Is there a
We do have warnings for things like the optimizer detecting a bad
application of a function, for example, but they go into the logger and you
have to say the magic words (open sesame?) to get them out.
For this kind of thing, my preference would be to change match than to
issue a warning. I don't
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.eduwrote:
I don't like warnings that are basically admitting weaknesses in the
language design
Ah, that's the answer my subconscious was seeking when I wondered about
Racket warnings. Good point!
FWIW, I'd vote (with
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
For this kind of thing, my preference would be to change match than to issue
a warning. I don't like warnings that are basically admitting weaknesses in
the language design Of course, changing a core thing
That's my take too, but we should really be careful about changes at this
level.
Robby
On Friday, May 3, 2013, Laurent wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edujavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu');
wrote:
I don't like warnings
Cond's else cannot change. I agree that that's what I would change if I
could have it back to do it over, but we cannot.
That's the way to perhaps be thinking about racket2, tho.
Robby
On Friday, May 3, 2013, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Robby Findler
Right, I agree with this. My question is basically: are we going to,
in the reasonably near future, be encouraging people to program in a
`#lang racket2` where `cond` works differently, in which case it
doesn't seem worth it to change `match`. Otherwise, I'll do this now.
Sam
On Fri, May 3,
Given that we don't yet even have a prototype of racket2, I'm going to
guess that near isn't all that near. IMO, there are other big things that
we should be focused on going first (notably the package system).
Just to check again: Is no one concerned with the backwards incompatibility
issue?
Cc: dev@racket-lang.org
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 11:04:27 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] else clauses: possible change to match?
Given that we don't yet even have a prototype of racket2, I'm going to guess
that near isn't all that near. IMO, there are other big things
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] else clauses: possible change to match?
Given that we don't yet even have a prototype of racket2, I'm going to
guess that near isn't all that near. IMO, there are other big things that
we should be focused on going first (notably the package system).
Just to check
A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
Given that we don't yet even have a prototype of racket2, I'm going
to guess that near isn't all that near. IMO, there are other big
things that we should be focused on going first (notably the package
system).
+1, since the damage would be that people
it too.
This could annoy them.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu
To: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu
Cc: dev@racket-lang.org
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 11:04:27 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] else clauses
:;
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 11:04:27 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] else clauses: possible change to match?
Given that we don't yet even have a prototype of racket2, I'm going
to guess that near isn't all that near. IMO, there are other big
things that we
On 05/03/2013 09:12 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
Given that we don't yet even have a prototype of racket2, I'm going
to guess that near isn't all that near. IMO, there are other big
things that we should be focused on going first (notably the package
system).
A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
FWIW, this was the bug in redex that prompted me to send this
message (it was there for some time since it wasn't a syntax error
it was similar in spirit to the code I posted; things broke
when #f was an argument)
[I think that it's good to have
31 matches
Mail list logo
