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

[David Storrs]

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 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 from one or the other, using
> `package-pinned-packages`, as explained here:
>
>   http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38632453/how-should-
> i-work-with-melpa-and-melpa-stable-using-emacs/38648126
>
> Also even in older Emacs as explained here under "Customizations":
>
>   https://melpa.org/#/getting-started
>

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Greg Hendershott]

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 from one or the other, using
`package-pinned-packages`, as explained here:

  
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38632453/how-should-i-work-with-melpa-and-melpa-stable-using-emacs/38648126

Also even in older Emacs as explained here under "Customizations":

  https://melpa.org/#/getting-started

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[David Storrs]

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" . "
https://marmalade-repo.org/packages/;)
 ("org" . "http://orgmode.org/elpa/;)))

(cond
 ((>= 24 emacs-major-version)
  (require 'package)
  (package-initialize)
  (add-to-list 'package-archives
   '("melpa-stable" . "http://stable.melpa.org/packages/;) t)
  (package-refresh-contents)
  )
 )


I see dr-racket-like-unicode and successfully installed it, but not
racket-mode.  Any ideas what I could do to make this work?


On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Greg Hendershott <
greghendersh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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:
>
>   https://github.com/greghendershott/racket-mode/blob/master/Reference.md#
> racket-unicode-input-method-enable
>
> Emacs 24.4 adds prettify-symbols-mode, where you can e.g. type
> "lambda" but an overlay displays it as λ (an idea I first saw in Neil
> van Dyke's Quack):
>
>   http://emacsredux.com/blog/2014/08/25/a-peek-at-emacs-24-
> dot-4-prettify-symbols-mode/
>
> --
> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Greg Hendershott]

> 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:

  
https://github.com/greghendershott/racket-mode/blob/master/Reference.md#racket-unicode-input-method-enable

Emacs 24.4 adds prettify-symbols-mode, where you can e.g. type
"lambda" but an overlay displays it as λ (an idea I first saw in Neil
van Dyke's Quack):

  
http://emacsredux.com/blog/2014/08/25/a-peek-at-emacs-24-dot-4-prettify-symbols-mode/

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Ben Greenman]

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 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[David Storrs]

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 those packages, though.
>
> Minor point; you know that you can type λ directly in DrRacket using
> cmd-backslash, right?
>

I did not, but that's a very nice feature.  Unfortunately, I'm an Emacs
guy.  :/

Dave


>
> John Clements
>
>
>
> --
> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

['John Clements' via Racket Users]

> 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, right?

John Clements



-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[David Storrs]

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 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 be a good name for it that I could use to
> > create a macro for it?  My current suggestion is 'thwonk', but I figured
> > I'd bounce it off other people first.
>
> Let's say te nake is thonk.
>
> You mean to write (thonk c ...) instead of (lambda (c) ...)?
>
> Just to save a pair of parentheses?  I'd say the real problem is that
> lambda is six letters long.  maybe you want aininfoc operator, like
>(c +> ...)
> But I don't know who you'd get that into a macro.
>
> -- hendrik
>
> >
> > --
> > 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Hendrik Boom]

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 was an equivalent of 'thunk' for that.
> 
> Is there?  If not, what would be a good name for it that I could use to
> create a macro for it?  My current suggestion is 'thwonk', but I figured
> I'd bounce it off other people first.

Let's say te nake is thonk.

You mean to write (thonk c ...) instead of (lambda (c) ...)?

Just to save a pair of parentheses?  I'd say the real problem is that 
lambda is six letters long.  maybe you want aininfoc operator, like
   (c +> ...)
But I don't know who you'd get that into a macro.

-- hendrik

> 
> -- 
> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[David Storrs]

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 (lambda ()
> ...).  I often find myself writing (lambda (x) ...) for something and
> wishing that there was an equivalent of 'thunk' for that.
>
> There's thunk*, which produces a function that accepts any number of
> arguments; is that what you're looking for?
>

It works, but I was more looking for one that accepts exactly one argument.



>
> > Is there?  If not, what would be a good name for it that I could use to
> create a macro for it?  My current suggestion is 'thwonk', but I figured
> I'd bounce it off other people first.
>
> --
> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Alex Knauth]

> 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 wishing that there was 
> an equivalent of 'thunk' for that.  

There's thunk*, which produces a function that accepts any number of arguments; 
is that what you're looking for?

> Is there?  If not, what would be a good name for it that I could use to 
> create a macro for it?  My current suggestion is 'thwonk', but I figured I'd 
> bounce it off other people first.

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Jos Koot]

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 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 be a good name for it that I could use to create 
a macro for it?  My current suggestion is 'thwonk',
but I figured I'd bounce it off other people first.



-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[David Storrs]

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 be a good name for it that I could use to
create a macro for it?  My current suggestion is 'thwonk', but I figured
I'd bounce it off other people first.

-- 
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.