Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hello Guix!
>
> As discussed on IRC recently, several of us think that using “#true” and
> “#false” instead of “#t” and “#f” throughout or documentation and code
> would probably make it easier for newcomers to decipher that.
>
> WDYT?
>
> This syntax is supported since
Andreas Enge skribis:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:59:40AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> What material are you referring to? SICP & co.?
>
> I simply used my favourite search engine with something such as
>scheme language boolean
OK. Note that it’s a different topic though: someone
On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 11:59 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andreas Enge skribis:
>
> > on the bikeshedding front: I find #true and #false confusing, since
> > everything I see on the Scheme language seems to use #t and #f.
>
> What material are you referring to? SICP & co.?
>
Sorry
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:59:40AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> What material are you referring to? SICP & co.?
I simply used my favourite search engine with something such as
scheme language boolean
In my case the first link is to the racket manual:
Hi,
Andreas Enge skribis:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:38:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> As discussed on IRC recently, several of us think that using “#true” and
>> “#false” instead of “#t” and “#f” throughout or documentation and code
>> would probably make it easier for newcomers to
Hi,
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> I think it’s very ugly that we still need to end phases with #T, even
>>> though build systems don’t care any more. The only thing that aborts a
>>> build phase now is an exception.
>>
>> I would be glad
Hi,
Andreas Enge skribis:
> on the bikeshedding front: I find #true and #false confusing, since
> everything I see on the Scheme language seems to use #t and #f.
What material are you referring to? SICP & co.?
Unfortunately, “the” Scheme language is more of a concept; SICP targets
R5RS I
Hi,
zimoun skribis:
> I do not have a strong opinion but I am still perplex if it really
> simplifies because all the material around about Scheme and especially
> the Guile manual still uses #t/#f and not #true/#false. For example,
>
> $ guix repl
> GNU Guile 3.0.4
> Copyright (C) 1995-2020
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> I think it’s very ugly that we still need to end phases with #T, even
>> though build systems don’t care any more. The only thing that aborts a
>> build phase now is an exception.
>
> I would be glad if this were the case, but I
Hi Ricardo,
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> I think it’s very ugly that we still need to end phases with #T, even
> though build systems don’t care any more. The only thing that aborts a
> build phase now is an exception.
I would be glad if this were the case, but I believe you're mistaken.
On both
On 20.10.2020 16:26, zimoun wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 15:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
zimoun 写道：
Maybe it is on my part but it returns #t and not #true. So
somehow
you need to know that #t is also #true or fix the REPL to return
#true
and not #t.
Right. Making e.g.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 15:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> zimoun 写道：
> > Maybe it is on my part but it returns #t and not #true. So
> > somehow
> > you need to know that #t is also #true or fix the REPL to return
> > #true
> > and not #t.
>
> Right. Making e.g. define-record-type ‘return
zimoun 写道：
Maybe it is on my part but it returns #t and not #true. So
somehow
you need to know that #t is also #true or fix the REPL to return
#true
and not #t.
Right. Making e.g. define-record-type ‘return #true’ would not
change what's actually returned under the hood.
(Thank
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 14:59, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> zimoun 写道：
> > So 'define-syntax define-record-type*' needs to be fixed to
> > return
> > #true...
>
> Not sure if this is a misunderstanding on my part or yours, but:
>
> ~ λ guile
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define (return-#true) #true)
zimoun 写道：
So 'define-syntax define-record-type*' needs to be fixed to
return
#true...
Not sure if this is a misunderstanding on my part or yours, but:
~ λ guile
scheme@(guile-user)> (define (return-#true) #true)
scheme@(guile-user)> (return-#true)
$3 = #t
Kind regards,
T G-R
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 02:45:54PM +0200, zimoun wrote:
> You are playing the devil's lawyer role, right?
> This is a question about the standard, right? It is not about #true
> or #false vs #t or #f.
> The Guile manual explains well, isn't it?
yes, indeed. What I want to say: Besides
Hi Andreas,
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 12:33, Andreas Enge wrote:
> And since we are on the bikeshedding front, I feel like writing a second
> message.
You are playing the devil's lawyer role, right?
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:38:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> - The "non-typedness of
Hi Ricardo,
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:12, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Comparison with EQ? is rarely useful in the context of Guix, because we
> usually don’t care about identity (“is the value behind this variable
> name and the value behind this other variable name one and the same,
> i.e. are the
Andreas Enge writes:
> And since we are on the bikeshedding front, I feel like writing a second
> message.
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:38:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> As discussed on IRC recently, several of us think that using “#true” and
>> “#false” instead of “#t” and “#f”
And since we are on the bikeshedding front, I feel like writing a second
message.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:38:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> As discussed on IRC recently, several of us think that using “#true” and
> “#false” instead of “#t” and “#f” throughout or documentation and code
>
Hello,
on the bikeshedding front: I find #true and #false confusing, since
everything I see on the Scheme language seems to use #t and #f. My first
impression was that #true and #false were guilisms...
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 03:36:06PM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> Maxim Cournoyer 写道：
>
Dear,
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 03:36, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes:
> > Maxim Cournoyer 写道：
> >> I'd only agree to such a change if it's already been standardized in
> >> the
> >> RnRS as such
> >
> > Sure, I think that's implied. #true and #false are part of the
> >
Hi,
On +2020-10-17 21:36:06 -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hello Tobias,
>
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes:
>
> > Maxim,
> >
> > Maxim Cournoyer 写道：
> >> I'd only agree to such a change if it's already been standardized in
> >> the
> >> RnRS as such
> >
> > Sure, I think that's implied. #true
Hello Tobias,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes:
> Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer 写道：
>> I'd only agree to such a change if it's already been standardized in
>> the
>> RnRS as such
>
> Sure, I think that's implied. #true and #false are part of the
> R7RS-small standard.
Thanks, I couldn't find where
I use "f" for followup. That works for me. :)
October 16, 2020 6:08 PM, "Miguel Ángel Arruga Vivas"
wrote:
> I didn't send this to the list... I must start using S L always instead
> of R and changing the headers manually, sorry. :o)
>
> ---
> Hi Ludo,
>
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>>
Hi Ludo,
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 12:38:23 +0200
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> As for the manual, I’m afraid it’ll make every msgid that contains
> @code{#t} stale. So maybe now’s not a good time to make this change?
Now's definitely not a good time to make this change.
I think it's a good idea to
I didn't send this to the list... I must start using S L always instead
of R and changing the headers manually, sorry. :o)
---
Hi Ludo,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hello Guix!
>
> As discussed on IRC recently, several of us think that using “#true” and
> “#false” instead of “#t” and “#f”
On 2020-10-16, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> As discussed on IRC recently, several of us think that using “#true” and
> “#false” instead of “#t” and “#f” throughout or documentation and code
> would probably make it easier for newcomers to decipher that.
>
> WDYT?
I would very much welcome this as
Maxim,
Maxim Cournoyer 写道：
I'd only agree to such a change if it's already been
standardized in the
RnRS as such
Sure, I think that's implied. #true and #false are part of the
R7RS-small standard.
I don't know what Guile ‘is’, but it supports that part of the
standard. I don't think it
Hello Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hello Guix!
>
> As discussed on IRC recently, several of us think that using “#true” and
> “#false” instead of “#t” and “#f” throughout or documentation and code
> would probably make it easier for newcomers to decipher that.
>
> WDYT?
>
> This syntax is
30 matches
Mail list logo
