[racket-users] Re: recursion schemes

Actully racket pattern matching syntax has already supported recursion scheme(catamorphism): (define (eval-expr e) (match e [`(+ ,(app eval-expr e0) ,(app eval-expr e1)) (+ e0 e1)] [`(- ,(app eval-expr e0) ,(app eval-expr e1)) (- e0 e1)] [(? number?) e] )) 在

Re: [racket-users] Building "#lang dungeon"

Hi Chris, While I understand the general goal you are aiming at, it isn't quite clear to me who you are trying to protect against who. There's a wide spectrum of people involved, ranging from language designers via library developers and application developers to end users. Who is going to define

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 08:47 -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:22:20PM +0100, Jack Rosenthal wrote: > > One of my gripes from writing and reading (reviewing) C code on a daily > > basis is that I have a hard time remembering the precedence of the > > operators beyond PEMDAS.

Re: [racket-users] Racket2 and syntax

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 03:30, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > tl;dr DON'T PANIC > > At RacketCon today, after summarizing the state of work on Racket CS, I > recommended that we next explore the possibly of changing to an > infix-oriented syntax in "Racket2". Infix notation introduces a lot of

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 and syntax

Maciek Godek writes: > Maybe the direction similar to where "I think we should be heading" is > somewhere between Mathematica notebooks and Smalltalk's object environments. I had similar-ish thoughts while watching the excellent Fructure talk at this year's RacketCon: maybe intro courses would

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 and syntax

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 9:52:43 AM UTC-4, cwebber wrote: > > Maciek Godek writes: > > > Maybe the direction similar to where "I think we should be heading" is > > somewhere between Mathematica notebooks and Smalltalk's object > environments. > > I had similar-ish thoughts while watching

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 and syntax

I look forward to the syntax discussion, within whatever process is determined. (BTW, I've said similar to what Gabriel do, as recently as last week [1], but I'm open to rethinking syntax.  Especially if it might mean we can entice Shriram to resume working more directly on Racket. :) [1]

[racket-users] DrRacket back button

In DrRacket I like being able to right click on an identifier and `Jump to Binding Occurance". Is there a way to "jump back" to where you jumped from? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

I think you make valid points, I just wanted to provide an alternate opinion... On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 13:44 -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: > - The challenge with s-expressions is largely in anxiety with something >that looks extremely alien. I suspect there's more fear from >

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:22:20PM +0100, Jack Rosenthal wrote: > > One of my gripes from writing and reading (reviewing) C code on a daily > basis is that I have a hard time remembering the precedence of the > operators beyond PEMDAS. Things get murky when trying to figure out the > order of the

[racket-users] Elegant tail nesting

The one problem I have with s-expression syntax is deep indentation with tail-nesting. In one lisp-like language I solved this by letting ( blah blah blah / foo foo foo / bar bar bar ) abbreviate ( blah bah blah ( foo foo foo ( bar bar bar ))) With indentation this gives ( blah blah blah /

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 and syntax

I hope you don't mind me adding my two cents to the discussion. I believe that people who use Lisp tend to see the advantage of its syntax for meta-programming. As Richard Gabriel and Guy Steele wrote in "The Evolution of Lisp", Algol-style syntax makes programs look less like the data

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 02:10:05PM +0100, Jack Rosenthal wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 08:47 -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:22:20PM +0100, Jack Rosenthal wrote: > > > One of my gripes from writing and reading (reviewing) C code on a daily > > > basis is that I have a

Re: [racket-users] Building "#lang dungeon"

Konrad Hinsen writes: > Hi Chris, > Hi Konrad, > While I understand the general goal you are aiming at, it isn't quite > clear to me who you are trying to protect against who. There's a wide > spectrum of people involved, ranging from language designers via library > developers and application

[racket-users] CFP: 4th Workshop on Meta-Programming Techniques and Reflection (Meta'19), Co-located with SPLASH 2019

Call for Papers 4th Workshop on Meta-Programming Techniques and Reflection (Meta’19) Co-located with SPLASH 2019 October 20, 2019, Athens, Greece

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 and syntax

I'm far out of my depth, but... Doesn't REBOL syntax fit all criteria given in the RacketCon talk? That's a genuine question. Reading about it, I was under the impression that it was basically lisp with alternate syntax. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [racket-users] DrRacket back button

No, not currently; you have to cycle through the binding identifiers (next binding occurrence). Robby On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Luke Whittlesey wrote: > In DrRacket I like being able to right click on an identifier and `Jump to > Binding Occurance". Is there a way to "jump back" to where

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

> On Jul 14, 2019, at 1:44 PM, someone wrote: > > - I am indeed very for growth in the community, though my main interest > in growth is in seeing a wider diversity of participants than just > raw numbers. Obviously other peoples' mileage may vary. This is politics and politics has no

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

In the language of web forums: +1 Insightful to Jack Firth's comments. Back on topic: The question that is most important to me is: Once #lang racket2 is designed and produced and out in the world, will #lang racket still be actively supported? If not, will there be tooling available to convert

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Jack Firth writes: > Matthias, I ask that you please not respond to discussion about the > diversity of the Racket community by saying it's a political topic and > politics have no place here. That statement alone is political and makes > many people feel unwelcome, including me. Likewise... and

[racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Has anyone considered http://shriram.github.io/p4p/ as an alternative? The idea in a nutshell is to get rid of the implicit `(begin ...)` that many of the forms have, and use that to reduce the number of required parentheses for parsing, and add in some extra syntactic sugar in the form of `:`

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

While we're all still figuring out how to best welcome and support everyone in CS-ish things, maybe it should be mentioned that Racketeers have some awareness and appreciation of familiar concerns, including from a research perspective (starting at least 15 years ago): High school teachers

Re: [racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Wesley Kerfoot wrote on 7/15/19 2:28 PM: Has anyone considered http://shriram.github.io/p4p/ as an alternative? This might represent Shriram's current thinking (and is what I was alluding to before): https://www.pyret.org/ I'll wait for the official community process to commence, before I

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Matthias, I ask that you please not respond to discussion about the diversity of the Racket community by saying it's a political topic and politics have no place here. That statement alone is political and makes many people feel unwelcome, including me. On the topic of a new syntax: I am

[racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Has anyone considered http://shriram.github.io/p4p/ as an alternative? The idea in a nutshell is to get rid of the implicit `(begin ...)` that many of the forms have, and use that to reduce the number of required parentheses for parsing, and add in some extra syntactic sugar in the form of `:`

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Hazards of reading email from the top down: Apparently there is a commitment to keeping #lang racket working. Phew! Thank you, core team! On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 11:54 AM David Storrs wrote: > In the language of web forums: +1 Insightful to Jack Firth's comments. > > > Back on topic: > The

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Jack, the word “diversity” is inherently political. It is designed as a wedge, a tool to separate people into groups and then from each other. It is used as a kudgel by one side of the political spectrum to relentlessly hit the other side. It was bad enough to have been told that there were

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 11:55 AM Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > Jack, > > the word “diversity” is inherently political. It is designed as a wedge, a > tool to separate people into groups and then from each other. It is used as > a kudgel by one side of the political spectrum to relentlessly hit the

Re: [racket-users] Building "#lang dungeon"

Hi Christopherm > Of course I don't expect someone to launch solitaire from the REPL, and > indeed there are UX considerations once we move from the REPL to actual I wasn't thinking so much of UX issues, but of the differences in the level of abstraction that different people need. The

[racket-users] Racket News - Issue 12

Another issue has landed at your doorstep. Sit down, grab a cup of coffee and enjoy! https://racket-news.com/2019/07/racket-news-issue-12.html Paulo Matos -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: [racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:26:06AM -0700, Wesley Kerfoot wrote: > Has anyone considered http://shriram.github.io/p4p/ as an alternative? > > The idea in a nutshell is to get rid of the implicit `(begin ...)` that > many of the forms have, and use that to reduce the number of required >

[racket-users] using scribble for everything from category theory to poetry

I'm thinking of trying Scribble again now that I have a new computer. I found it unacceptably slow years ago when I tried it on a 80,000 word novel. I now, however, have a modern machine and it may be fast enough. I have a few questions before I convert *everything* I'm doing to scribble. Each

[racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

W dniu niedziela, 14 lipca 2019 19:44:30 UTC+2 użytkownik cwebber napisał: > > [...] > - Nonetheless, assumptions that various math operators should be infix >is understandable because that's what people see today. > I'd recommend to do some crawling on Racket code base to see what

[racket-users] why scribble may be slow

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:38:17PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > I'm thinking of trying Scribble again now that I have a new computer. > I found it unacceptably slow years ago when I tried it on a 80,000 word novel. > I now, however, have a modern machine and it may be fast enough. A theory why

[racket-users] Re: why scribble may be slow

I believe the reason Scribble is slow on your file has to do with algorithms and logic in Scribble that have poor performance characteristics on large files, and nothing at all to do with the fact that Scribble is implemented in Racket. With a reproducible performance benchmark for running

Re: [racket-users] Re: why scribble may be slow

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:22:35PM -0700, Jack Firth wrote: > I believe the reason Scribble is slow on your file has to do with > algorithms and logic in Scribble that have poor performance characteristics > on large files, and nothing at all to do with the fact that Scribble is > implemented

[racket-users] [ANN] Reducers, a better way to fold

I've recently added another library to Rebellion, this one for reducers . A *reducer* is a way to combine a series of values: > (require rebellion/streaming/reducer) > (reduce into-sum 1 2 3 4 5) 15 You can reduce any sequence using

Re: [racket-users] Re: The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

P4P is also very much "current", as far as I'm concerned. (In fact, I'm quite likely about to use it in a new setting.) Pyret is a parallel branch effort. Pyret is "let's just go all out and design a new syntax". Specifically, I was tired of dealing with people who wouldn't read *How to

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Another Racketeer here who's been in the community since day 0. We have various views and people in the community. But our commitment to making tools and learning available to all, open to all, and catering to all — what many of us label diversity — is, I hope, demonstrated by our actions.

[racket-users] Racket Week 2019 was amazing!

A sincere "thank you" to everyone who was involved in creating Racket Week 2019 as well as to the other participants who helped make the week an amazing experience! I had high expectations, and they were all exceeded - by far. I'll be returning home tomorrow with fond memories of my time here

Re: [racket-users] Building "#lang dungeon"

If you want to solve problems like how to handle user conceptual models of permissions, consider putting "UX" aside for a moment. UX gets confused by conflicts of interest, which the earlier disciplines of HCI and human factors engineering did not much have. HCI comes from a human factors

Re: [racket-users] The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2

Matthias, I disagree with this. First, we all believe that the Racket community is one of the most important parts of Racket. Given that, how to make it the community we want it to be, and how to welcome as many new people to our community as possible, are fundamental to what we discuss on this

[racket-users] Conservancy policy vs. Racket policy

[forked from "The case, and a proposal, for elegant syntax in #lang racket2"] > On 07 15 19, at 10:55 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > the word “diversity” is inherently political. It is designed as a wedge, a > tool to separate people into groups and then from each other. It is used as a >