Re: [racket-users] fluent: unix style pipes and lambda shorthand to make your code more readable

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:23:46PM +0700, Roger Keays wrote: > > I've been using the Clojure-like threading package for a while now and this > > has > > some nice advantages that are mentioned in the docs, like blending the first > > arg > and last arg >> variants easily in a sequence. > > > >

[racket-users] key combos at the command line

I am working on an example command line chat client in Racket and I need a method to switch from text chat to commands for things like sending a binary file or executing a utility to check the network connection. I am thinking of something like control key combinations. What is the easiest

Re: [racket-users] fluent: unix style pipes and lambda shorthand to make your code more readable

there is a proposal to add it to javascript too: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Pipeline_operator On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:28:12AM +0800, Tim Lee wrote: > > Using *fluent*, the same racket code can be written according to the UNIX > > philosophy: >

Re: [racket-users] fluent: unix style pipes and lambda shorthand to make your code more readable

> This is very cool.  You might take a look at the `threading` module for > additional ideas: https://docs.racket-lang.org/threading/index.html Yeh, the threading macro is what took me down this rabbit-hole. But I wanted an infix operator, mostly because of my pernicious unix habit. I found

Re: [racket-users] fluent: unix style pipes and lambda shorthand to make your code more readable

> I've been using the Clojure-like threading package for a while now and this > has > some nice advantages that are mentioned in the docs, like blending the first > arg > and last arg >> variants easily in a sequence. > > How does fluent manage this infixing from a (require ...) rather than a