Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

Ah, I should have thought of that. Yep, it works. Thanks. On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > racket-mode is on MELPA: > > https://melpa.org/#/racket-mode > > But not MELPA stable. > > Personally I use only MELPA non-stable, because I like

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

racket-mode is on MELPA: https://melpa.org/#/racket-mode But not MELPA stable. Personally I use only MELPA non-stable, because I like packages to break all the time. Seriously, it's been fine, for me. In Emacs 24.4+ I understand it's possible to use both. You can say to get certain packages

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

On that subject, I just now tried to install racket-mode, but it isn't listed at all. I see it on the website, but not in the M-x package-list-packages list. I have this in my .emacs: (setq package-archives '(("gnu" . "https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/;) ("marmalade" . "

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

> I did not, but that's a very nice feature. Unfortunately, I'm an Emacs > guy. :/ Well as is often the case Emacs provides only about 42 ways you could do this. :) A few: In racket-mode C-M-y inserts λ. There's also racket-unicode-method-enable:

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, David Storrs wrote: > I did not, but that's a very nice feature. Unfortunately, I'm an Emacs > guy. :/ Then you have no excuse for not making a λ macro. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 9:14 AM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users < racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2016, at 06:42, David Storrs wrote: > > > > Thanks, all. Points well taken and I'll go back to writing lambda (x). > I appreciate the pointer to

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

> On Nov 13, 2016, at 06:42, David Storrs wrote: > > Thanks, all. Points well taken and I'll go back to writing lambda (x). I > appreciate the pointer to those packages, though. Minor point; you know that you can type λ directly in DrRacket using cmd-backslash,

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

Thanks, all. Points well taken and I'll go back to writing lambda (x). I appreciate the pointer to those packages, though. On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 01:22:42PM -0800, David Storrs wrote: > > The 'thunk' procedure is

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 01:22:42PM -0800, David Storrs wrote: > The 'thunk' procedure is really useful and is sprinkled liberally through > my code because it saves keystrokes / is clearer than (lambda () ...). I > often find myself writing (lambda (x) ...) for something and wishing that > there

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Alex Knauth wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 2016, at 4:22 PM, David Storrs > wrote: > > > > The 'thunk' procedure is really useful and is sprinkled liberally > through my code because it saves keystrokes / is clearer than

Re: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

> On Nov 12, 2016, at 4:22 PM, David Storrs wrote: > > The 'thunk' procedure is really useful and is sprinkled liberally through my > code because it saves keystrokes / is clearer than (lambda () ...). I often > find myself writing (lambda (x) ...) for something and

RE: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

Your quastion is not clear to me but may be you want --thunk*--? Jos _ From: racket-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:racket-users@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Storrs Sent: sábado, 12 de noviembre de 2016 22:23 To: Racket Users Subject: [racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero

[racket-users] If a thunk is a proc of zero arguments, what is a proc of one argument?

The 'thunk' procedure is really useful and is sprinkled liberally through my code because it saves keystrokes / is clearer than (lambda () ...). I often find myself writing (lambda (x) ...) for something and wishing that there was an equivalent of 'thunk' for that. Is there? If not, what would