Re: [racket-users] Re: Library function naming

I believe OP is referring to the paragraph about play-with-frisky-with-laser being their default style and their sincere recommendation for Racket code style. It also seems to be the style that most closely matches core APIs. On August 29, 2017 at 11:23:51, David Storrs (david.sto...@gmail.com)

Re: [racket-users] Re: Library function naming

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > > (Of course, other general conventions also have their merits, in various > languages and environments. For example `FrskyLsr_szGetColor()`. And > `com.example.FriskyLaser.FriskyLaserPlayBehavior.play` and

Re: [racket-users] Re: Library function naming

It's also worth considering that you can munge the names when you provide -- and your users can munge them on require. See filtered-out and filtered-in -- as well as the more commonly used conveniences built on them, like prefix-{in out}, rename-{in out}, and so on. I think sometimes the

Re: [racket-users] Re: Library function naming

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > (Someday, I will have time to release a package that changes how > `define-struct`/`struct` identifiers are generated, to use `.` or `:`. To > at least have the appearance of being more idiomatic, to hint at the >

Re: [racket-users] Re: Library function naming

I recommend trying to develop most non-core Racket modules as if you might want to share them as small reusable third-party open source packages in the near future. Which has implications for naming. For reusable third-party Racket packages, right now, I recommend usually trying to include

Re: [racket-users] Re: Library function naming

The style guide Jack mentions is not really about the /library's/ name, but rather about the data type of the main (usually the first) argument, as saide. For example you could have a library called `my-wonderful-lib' that experts `vector-splendify', which takes a vector as its first argument. On