[racket-users] The elegance of tail-nesting recursive syntax

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:25:18PM -0700, rocketnia wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 6:43:25 AM UTC-7, Ben Greenman wrote: > > > > On 7/24/19, Mike G. > wrote: > > >> My proposal is to pick a currently underused character (I picked '/' 30 > > >> years ago but amost anything would

Re: [racket-users] tail-nesting recursive syntax

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 6:43:25 AM UTC-7, Ben Greenman wrote: > > On 7/24/19, Mike G. > wrote: > >> My proposal is to pick a currently underused character (I picked '/' 30 > >> years ago but amost anything would do) and use it to replace the > >> tail-nesting '(', and remove its

Re: [racket-users] Re: Using errortrace with repl-driven-development?

Thanks, but actually I think my problem was that I wasn't invoking the function in the repl itself. ;; myfile.rkt ... (f 123) ;; top-level invocation doesnt produce proper stacktraces in repl but when I typed it in the repl it was ok > ,en "myfile.rkt" "myfile.rkt"> (f 456) ;

Re: [racket-users] Message in the meantime?

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:16 PM Matthew Butterick wrote: > Support for alternative notation in the documentation system is a missing > piece in Racket's LOP tooling: > > … primary forms like `defproc` assume that the language uses > S-expressions. > > Examples: `#lang datalog` [1] and `#lang

Re: [racket-users] Message in the meantime?

> On Jul 24, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > it seems difficult to make switching syntax automatic and pervasive. I > think there would end up being a lot of overhead to maintaining > documentation and tools that can reliably toggle between notations. Support for alternative

Re: [racket-users] Message in the meantime?

At Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:19:27 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > In any case, this might be a little time for everyone to reflect on > their interests, and then we could try to be really-super-clear that we > all have identical shared understanding about what's motivating Racket2. Your post strikes

Re: [racket-users] Building "#lang dungeon"

I wonder if the unit system, or something like it, could be a basis for implementing this, especially the aspect of avoiding too much explicit argument passing. Signatures can define bundles of identifiers, like file IO primitives. This lets you avoid having to know which specific primitives are

Re: [racket-users] racket notebooks (Was: Language-Specific Plugins: Toolbar button functionality to call drracket:eval:expand-program)

HN is currently commenting on one attempt to increase sharing of notebook-oriented programming: "Show HN: A tool to convert Jupyter notebooks to beautiful blogs" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20515880 Neil Van Dyke wrote on 6/26/19 2:31 AM: Arie Schlesinger wrote on 6/26/19 1:55 AM:

Re: [racket-users] Message in the meantime?

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 5:26:55 PM UTC-4, David Storrs wrote: > > There have been multiple threads going around about this change, so maybe > this has been answered and I've just missed it; if so, apologies. Still, I > would love the answer to this: > >What value are we trying to

Re: [racket-users] Message in the meantime?

There have been multiple threads going around about this change, so maybe this has been answered and I've just missed it; if so, apologies. Still, I would love the answer to this: What value are we trying to capture by changing the syntax? So far, my understanding for the change is "Some

Re: [racket-users] Interoperability between Racket & Chez Scheme

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 06:52:32PM -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:14:56 -0700 (PDT), Brian Adkins wrote: > > With the Racket on Chez Scheme implementation, how interoperable are Racket > > and Chez? Is it possible for Racket functions to call Chez functions (or > > vice

Re: [racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 08:06:18AM -0700, Will Jukes wrote: >- On the other hand, parenthesized syntax is a natural way of conveying >the difference between statements and expressions, and that's lost in >moving away from parenthesized syntax, so there's some trade-off there. Is

Re: [racket-users] Message in the meantime?

At Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:55:37 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote: > Ignoring the implementation difficulty (which I realize is a ridiculous > thing to ignore, but just for a thought experiment): I've seen some SDK > or API docs with a "choose your language" UI that changes function > signatures and code

Re: [racket-users] On Fire and Brimstone, Gnashing of Teeth, and the Death of All that is Holy

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM David Storrs wrote: > > If, on the other hand, the dev team is going to specify that TOTS will be > the Pythonic version and the Lispy version will be relegated to historical > status, with no promise that there won't be breaking changes in the > future...well,

[racket-users] Re: On Fire and Brimstone, Gnashing of Teeth, and the Death of All that is Holy

Just for mentioning the original source: It has been made quite clear at RacketCon and the video recording of it, that #lang racket is here to stay with its current syntax. My guess is still, that people are a bit worried about any syntax becoming second class citizen in Racket. (btw.: I like

Re: [racket-users] On Fire and Brimstone, Gnashing of Teeth, and the Death of All that is Holy

This feels a bit dismissive of people's concerns. Yes, the toy examples you give are non-controversial in their changes. That's not the case once you start scaling up to even slightly more realistic code. For example: (and a (or b c d) e (if x g f)) a and b or c or d and e and if x g f Those

Re: [racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:40:25 PM UTC-4, sk wrote: > > To riff on Will's message: > > In the Bootstrap:Algebra > materials, we use > Racket syntax because it's a powerful pedagogic device. Recently, for > various reasons, we've ported

Re: [racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

To riff on Will's message: In the Bootstrap:Algebra materials, we use Racket syntax because it's a powerful pedagogic device. Recently, for various reasons, we've ported this over to another language called Pyret (while also maintaining the

Re: [racket-users] Re: Using errortrace with repl-driven-development?

errortrace with ,en should work as normal, as long as you ensure that there are no pre-compiled bytecode files (compiled/*.zo): $ ls myfile.rkt $ racket -l errortrace -i Welcome to Racket v7.2. > ,en "myfile.rkt" "myfile.rkt"> (f 123) ; g: 123 [,bt for context] "myfile.rkt"> ,bt ; g: 123 ;

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Prefix notation is good. What makes difficulties is mixed notations. There how it looks: (Math.Sin(1\(1 + Math.Exp(x * -1))) - Math.Pow((1\Math.Log(x - (r * -1))), 3)) \ Math.Sqrt(Math.Pow(x + r, 2)) Add to this functions with more then 2 arguments. Add to this iterations, and it will be complete

[racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

I teach Scheme and Python on different contexts, to middle and high school students with varying degrees of programming background (beginner to ~fairly advanced), and wanted to share what I perceive kids to struggle with when learning Scheme relative to other languages, and how I think some of

[racket-users] Re: define/contract for private functions

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:55:58 AM UTC-5, Roman Klochkov wrote: > > I propose to use submodules like in > https://github.com/Kalimehtar/binary-class/blob/master/binary-class/base.rkt > > So you may in test module (require mod/safe) and in normal operation > (require mod). > Sorry, I

Re: [racket-users] tail-nesting recursive syntax

On 7/24/19, Mike G. wrote: >> My proposal is to pick a currently underused character (I picked '/' 30 >> years ago but amost anything would do) and use it to replace the >> tail-nesting '(', and remove its corresponding ')'. >> >> Suddenly visual parenthesis-matching becomes an order of magnitude

Re: [racket-users] Racket v7.3.0.900 is available for testing

> This release is the first one to include Chez-Scheme-based builds > (labeled “Racket CS” on the pre-release page), and we’d be > interested in hearing about any issues you encounter with these > builds. OK, I added a new "RELEASECS" target to travis-racket:

Re: [racket-users] tail-nesting recursive syntax

> My proposal is to pick a currently underused character (I picked '/' 30 > years ago but amost anything would do) and use it to replace the > tail-nesting '(', and remove its corresponding ')'. > > Suddenly visual parenthesis-matching becomes an order of magnitude > easier, without losing any

[racket-users] Re: Using errortrace with repl-driven-development?

Thanks! This one was what is needed. racket -l errortrace -l racket -i Actually, I tried this on my own before but I kept on getting "(no backtrace)" when I would run my file. Turns out, you can only get the stacktrace if you run the code via the repl input rather than running code within

Re: [racket-users] on reducing barriers in the Racket community

Thank you very much Matthew and Neil for those refreshing write-ups! I'm really glad to see the question of inclusion, diversity (not the politically charged American meaning), and overall well-being in an mostly online community. DISCLAIMER: Please take what I'm going to say with a distance.

Re: [racket-users] Re: i18n / srfi-29

I dont like (unless (load-bundle! specifier) ...) clause. If you change the translation in source code, old version will be used, because (load-bundle! specifier) will load old version and return #t. вторник, 23 июля 2019 г., 12:00:25 UTC+5 пользователь Bogdan Popa написал: > > > Is it OK to