Hi all,
Thanks to all replies, at the moment I would tend to agree that generalised
`set!` might not be such a great idea after all:
- The notion of 'place' is essentially a pointer to a memory location,
but it is not the first-class citizen: the following expressions are not
On Jul 1, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Alexey Cherkaev alexey.cherk...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to all replies, at the moment I would tend to agree that generalised
`set!` might not be such a great idea after all:
The notion of 'place' is essentially a pointer to a memory location, but it
On Jun 30, 2015, at 6:43 PM, George Neuner wrote:
On 6/30/2015 5:34 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote:
On Jun 30, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Alexey Cherkaev alexey.cherk...@gmail.com
wrote:
... wouldn't it be beneficial to have such a generalised 'set!'
system-wide? I understand
On Jun 30, 2015, at 5:34 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users
racket-users@googlegroups.com wrote:
Specifically, one of the basic ideas of algebraic languages is that programs
are compositional. Specifically, if I write (a (b x) c), then the meaning of
this term depends on the meanings of
Racket does have 'make-set!-transformer' that allows you to define
syntax that cooperates with 'set!'. I think that might work if you are
defining your own datatype. Have you seen that?
Thanks,
Dave
On 06/30/2015 11:10 AM, Alexey Cherkaev wrote:
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your reply: I had
I have implemented generalized `set!` in Racket before, as a cute
exploratory exercise, but I haven't found a sufficiently compelling
benefit of generalized `set!`.
The closest I've imagined to benefit of generalized `set!`: let's say
you had really terse but nice referencing syntax for
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your reply: I had something similar in mind (maybe I should
check out math/array). I was just wondering if there was something more
Racket-like (it still feels that SRFI is somewhat 'foreign' hack). And my
last question remains: wouldn't it be beneficial to have such a
As the mentioned SRFI states it:
This is a proposal to allow procedure calls that evaluate to the value
of a location to be used to /set/ the value of the location, when used
as the first operand of |set!|.
The term location is only used in the introductory part but for those
who know the
On Jun 30, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Alexey Cherkaev alexey.cherk...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for your reply: I had something similar in mind (maybe I should check
out math/array). I was just wondering if there was something more Racket-like
(it still feels that SRFI is somewhat
On 6/30/2015 5:34 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote:
On Jun 30, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Alexey Cherkaev alexey.cherk...@gmail.com
wrote:
... wouldn't it be beneficial to have such a generalised 'set!' system-wide?
I understand that Racket focusses more on immutable structures, but there
On Jun 30, 2015, at 3:43 PM, George Neuner gneun...@comcast.net wrote:
that's just semantics.
XD
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Racket Users group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On 06/30/2015 07:27 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote:
On Jun 30, 2015, at 3:43 PM, George Neuner gneun...@comcast.net wrote:
that's just semantics.
XD
Let me expound a bit on John's pure-functional snooty-poo reply.
Semantics - what programs mean - is everything. Exactly how
Hi all,
Common Lisp has a very useful idiom of SETF that can set values to arbitrary
places. For example, one can set (1 2)-th item of an array A as:
(SETF (AREF A 1 2) 20.0d0)
Scheme preferred way is to use `*-set!` procedures. However, sometimes it is
inconvenient. For example, if I want to
On Jun 29, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Alexey Cherkaev alexey.cherk...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, I was thinking of defining syntax to access my implementation of
multidimensional arrays
as
(define-syntax aref
(syntax-rules (set!)
[(set! (aref ?a ?i ...) ?v) (array-set! ?a ?i ... ?v)]
14 matches
Mail list logo
