On Sep 18, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Racket Noob wrote: > > > You keep thinking (1 2 3) is the canonical form of a list. It is > > not. It's just a particular *print representation* of list. So is > > #<list> or one of the many alternatives Eli proposed. > > > > Oh, I understand that. It's just that I don't understand why you (i.e. Racket > implementers) choose Racket by default prints list this way (different than > all other lisps). I think this choice can confuse beginners (and all other > users who switches from different lisp implementations and expects > "traditional" REPL behaviour).
They partly made the choice for people like me, who didn't experience their courses or work through the the early chapters in HtDP; our group is still suffering from software I wrote before I understood the difference between the R and P in REPL (using several earlier versions of Scheme). I believe the Racket REPL would have eliminated that confusion. I also find flights over the ocean are more comfortable with turbine engines than piston engines. rac > > > Your attempt to use an interpreter model is commendable but falls > > short. That is because you only described the READ and EVAL steps of > > a REPL. The L(oop) is not relevant here, but the P(rint) is actually > > the most critical part, and that's the one you left out of your > > attempt at explaining what's happening. > > > > Also, Matthias asked you about substituting answers inside bigger > > expressions. You gave him a mechanical answer of why (you think) it > > won't work, but you failed to understand the bigger point he was > > trying to make in the first place. > > > > Shriram > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
