Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:35:22PM -0700, Jordan Johnson wrote: > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Greg Hendershott > wrote: > > Keyword arguments: Although I'm comfortable in the #: camp, I can > > understand people preferring :foo over #:foo for the reason that it is >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > Keyword arguments: Although I'm comfortable in the #: camp, I can > understand people preferring :foo over #:foo for the reason that it is > faster to type. #: requires two shifted chars. If you touch type you >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Greg Hendershott wrote on 10/24/2015 10:43 AM: p.s. If people read that (even just section 7.7), and there's still a debate? Then probably the only resolution would be a compromise that leaves everyone equally unhappy. Like say :#:keyword:#: ;) I linked the paper on Oct 15, though it got lost

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > but seriously Asumu mentioned > Flatt and Barzilay's "Keyword and optional arguments in PLT Scheme" on > irc last night: > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.162.17 > The paper illuminates the

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On 10/23/2015 11:30 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > If you touch type you > use both left and right shift keys O_o. ...but only the right shift key in dvorak, but seriously Asumu mentioned Flatt and Barzilay's "Keyword and optional arguments in PLT Scheme" on irc last night:

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:58:30PM -0400, Anthony Carrico wrote: On 10/23/2015 11:30 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: If you touch type you use both left and right shift keys O_o. ...but only the right shift key in dvorak For greater keyboard layout awareness, here is a more complete assessment

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Keyword arguments: Although I'm comfortable in the #: camp, I can understand people preferring :foo over #:foo for the reason that it is faster to type. #: requires two shifted chars. If you touch type you use both left and right shift keys O_o. In that respect #: is even more awkward a finger

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Leif Andersen wrote: > > I am genuinely surprised :keyword saw so much support and that change > was so attractive to people. > > That's because of the questions you asked. I saw those questions and said > to myself: "Self, I don't care

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

So, I thought about doing that. Except that I ended up not, because voting 5/5/0 doesn't properly capture my feelings. 5/5/0 seems more like a, I see pros and cons with both sides, but I fundamentally care some way or the other which way this goes. My opinion really is that this is a silly

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Leif Andersen > wrote: > > > I am genuinely surprised :keyword saw so much support and that change >> was so attractive to people. >> >> That's because of the

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

> I am genuinely surprised :keyword saw so much support and that change was so attractive to people. That's because of the questions you asked. I saw those questions and said to myself: "Self, I don't care enough about this debate enough to even really fill out these questions." (Although if you

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I agree. I think that :xyz doesn't look special enough, and with #:xyz is clear that the reader is doing something special. Gustavo On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Laurent wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Deren Dohoda > wrote: >> >> I

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Matthias Felleisen writes: > [I am using past tense because I am sure Fortran is kind of dead > now :-).] There are probably more active Fortran programmers than active Racket programmers at this time. > People wish to conduct a discourse about a domain in the language > of their domain,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

> Code snippets get detached from `#lang` lines all the time, especially in > sometimes-terse 'social media' like email, chat, blogs, Twitter, etc. Although this can be a problem, I think it's already a problem in Racket -- and generally. Example: Spend time answering a Racket question on Stack

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Matthias Felleisen writes: > > For me the strongest point of Racket is that it encourages linguistic > > diversity while maintaining (nearly enforcing) interoperability. My > > dream language environment would go one step further and provide a > > second more low-level interoperability layer

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Oct 16, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > Matthias Felleisen writes: > >>> For me the strongest point of Racket is that it encourages linguistic >>> diversity while maintaining (nearly enforcing) interoperability. My >>> dream language environment would

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

[ message quoted in reversed for obvious reasons ] On Oct 16, 2015, at 7:18 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > Matthias Felleisen writes: >> People wish to conduct a discourse about a domain in the language >> of their domain, and the more we enable the creation of

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:24:06PM +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote: Matthias Felleisen writes: > > For me the strongest point of Racket is that it encourages linguistic > > diversity while maintaining (nearly enforcing) interoperability. My > > dream language environment would go one step further

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:21:09AM -0600, William G Hatch wrote: > > FYI, I'm a grad student at Utah with Matthew, and my current project > is a #lang pre-racket that compiles to C. It hasn't really gotten off > the ground yet because I've been busy with classes and fellowship > applications,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

While were at it, can we make :long-keyword [3] => :long-keyword [long-keyword 3] ? And can we make define => =, and = => == ? In general, can we "Huffman encode" forms by average form usage frequency? (But seriously, the first one would be nice) On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Gustavo

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote: > I don't have a very strong opinion, it seems like convenient syntax, but > half of what draws me to stick with lisps is the low amount of syntax. > Pound-colon has a strong line noise quality to it which colons lack,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I don't have a very strong opinion, it seems like convenient syntax, but half of what draws me to stick with lisps is the low amount of syntax. Pound-colon has a strong line noise quality to it which colons lack, I admit. But they also have an explicit feel which colons lack. Inclusion or

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:18:22PM -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: ... ... > A common reason for fragmentation is the creation and use of function > libraries. For example, a Fortran programmer in the field of physical > simulations used different function libraries than one in commercial >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Hendrik Boom wrote on 10/15/2015 01:25 PM: I'd like to ask: What do the Scheme standards say about this? What do Lisp standards say about this? I don't know the answers to these questons, though maybe I should, and Racket is not a standard Scheme, but I think these answers should at least

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: > > (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f > > IIRC the common lisp keywords you admire are symbols. I think that the > proposed syntax confuses symbols and

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > BTW, in response to an earlier comment regarding fragmentation, I think that > `#lang foo-reader racket` and `#lang foo-replacing-racket-reader` are > equivalent in immediate fragmentation effect. What's more

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

In case I'm being to oblique, I'm trying to point out that: (equal? '#:test ':test) ; -> #f which means that the proposal will certainly break things. -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:48:17AM +0200, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 04:37 PM: > >> > >> You can use > >> #lang colon-kw racket > >> for :kw syntax, and > >> #lang kw-colon racket >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f IIRC the common lisp keywords you admire are symbols. I think that the proposed syntax confuses symbols and keywords, which are distinct types. -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On 10/15/2015 03:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: > > (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f err... (symbol? '#:test) ; -> #f -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users"

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On 10/15/2015 03:39 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > On 10/15/2015 03:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: >> I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: >> >> (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f > > err... (symbol? '#:test) ; -> #f > Yes. I found this in the Common Lisp Hyperspec:

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Chicken scheme has an option for that: http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Non-standard%20read%20syntax#keyword I'm a fan; it makes the code pretty pleasant to read. martin On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Jukka Tuominen < jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi> wrote: > Yoda like that would, but to me it

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Racket has an option for that. It's a meta-language that I made this morning. #lang colon-kw racket You can use it for one or two files without messing up everything else. > On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Martin DeMello wrote: > > Chicken scheme has an option for

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I find `keyword:` kinda pretty, too (I first used them in Smalltalk, though Smalltalk syntax takes it a huge step further). But, IIRC, it was Joe Marshall who pointed out (one of the past times keywords were discussed) that `:keyword`s are visually less ambiguous in Lisp syntax when use of a

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Yoda like that would, but to me it looks backwards. How about...? key: value br, jukka UX Manager :) Sent from my iPhone > On 14.10.2015, at 18.50, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > We are conducting a highly scientific poll. > > The question we want to answer is whether people

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I briefly considered including Objective-C/Smalltalk style keywords in the form too. I haven't extensively programmed with them, but I find them kind of beautiful. Jay On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Jukka Tuominen wrote: > Yoda like that would, but to me it

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

You can use #lang colon-kw racket for :kw syntax, and #lang kw-colon racket for kw: syntax. They are compose-able as well, so you can use #lang colon-kw kw-colon racket to let :kw and kw: both work in the same file. > On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:37 PM, Alex Knauth wrote: > >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 04:37 PM: You can use #lang colon-kw racket for :kw syntax, and #lang kw-colon racket for kw: syntax. If the standard `#lang racket` and `#lang racket/base` don't support `:keyword` out of the box -- but instead some alternative reader or forked #lang is

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > I very much appreciate diligence about backward-compatibility, but I'm not > actually aware of any Racket code that actually uses colon-symbol for any > purpose other than as a keyword. And the ones that use

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 05:57 PM: On Oct 14, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke > wrote: I very much appreciate diligence about backward-compatibility, but I'm not actually aware of any Racket code that actually uses colon-symbol for

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Something for consideration in Racket 2? I've gotten used #:keywords, but initially felt that they were inelegant. Dan -- 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

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 04:37 PM: >> >> You can use >> #lang colon-kw racket >> for :kw syntax, and >> #lang kw-colon racket >> for kw: syntax. > > > If the standard `#lang racket` and `#lang racket/base` don't

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:45:46 PM UTC-7, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 05:57 PM: > > > > > It's not worth changing the default for all of racket just to avoid > > putting #lang colon-kw racket at the top of a program. > > > > I currently have the opposite

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

> It's not "forking the language", it's turning into an opt-in library. The > huge difference between the colon-kw language mixin and that paddle/base > language is that the form isn't a language. It can be provided to any > language. If your paddle/base language didn't provide colon keywords,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I love this message. Highlight of my day. :) On Wednesday, October 14, 2015, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > We are conducting a highly scientific poll. > > The question we want to answer is whether people would like for the Racket > standard languages to have symbols that begin

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Alexis King wrote: > I can’t wait until all of my programs look like this at the top: Haskellers are living the dream. For example: https://github.com/ekmett/lens/blob/master/src/Control/Lens/Tuple.hs -- You received this message