On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:16 PM Matthew Butterick wrote:
> Support for alternative notation in the documentation system is a missing
> piece in Racket's LOP tooling:
>
> … primary forms like `defproc` assume that the language uses
> S-expressions.
>
> Examples: `#lang datalog` [1] and `#lang
> On Jul 24, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> it seems difficult to make switching syntax automatic and pervasive. I
> think there would end up being a lot of overhead to maintaining
> documentation and tools that can reliably toggle between notations.
Support for alternative
At Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:19:27 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> In any case, this might be a little time for everyone to reflect on
> their interests, and then we could try to be really-super-clear that we
> all have identical shared understanding about what's motivating Racket2.
Your post strikes
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 5:26:55 PM UTC-4, David Storrs wrote:
>
> There have been multiple threads going around about this change, so maybe
> this has been answered and I've just missed it; if so, apologies. Still, I
> would love the answer to this:
>
>What value are we trying to
There have been multiple threads going around about this change, so maybe
this has been answered and I've just missed it; if so, apologies. Still, I
would love the answer to this:
What value are we trying to capture by changing the syntax?
So far, my understanding for the change is "Some
At Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:55:37 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> Ignoring the implementation difficulty (which I realize is a ridiculous
> thing to ignore, but just for a thought experiment): I've seen some SDK
> or API docs with a "choose your language" UI that changes function
> signatures and code
I want to take a further step back, and say it would help for everyone
to be really-super-clear on what's motivating Racket2, and what we
really want to accomplish. (I know a good effort has already been made,
but I get the impression not everyone has the same idea yet, and I think
even more
Although I'm still skeptical that changing the surface syntax will be a
sufficiently big net gain, and ought to be the next, highest priority?
I'm running with that idea for the following.
It seems like there are at least two "flavors" or "strengths", of giving
Racket a non-sexpr syntax someday:
8 matches
Mail list logo
