On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: >> >>> Later I finally grokked why. I can translate the at-exp to the s-exp >>> on the fly. >> >> It's probably good to make this an important goal when learning the >> system, even though it's a small corner of the whole thing now... > > I think Eli means "the documentation system" by "the whole thing", but > the equivalence between at-exps and s-exps is at the heart of why > at-exps are great, and why Eli's design succeeded where many many > other people have failed in this space. If you're learning about > at-exps, keeping this equivalence in mind is very useful.
Thank you for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of the history and didn't appreciate the difficulty. Again: I love at-exps (now). p.s To loop back to Josh's original point: I've written a library. I've tested the code. I'm eager to release my first-ever Racket package! The last hurdle is to write docs. I go learn how to do this in Racket. At that point, the last thing I probably want to learn is an equivalence for s-expressions. :) Instead I want to focus on writing clear text and including good examples. And I want to finish it soon. (And the last thing the rest of us probably want, is for someone to give up and release the package without docs.) So I completely understand where Josh is coming from. Fortunately I think even just (a) a few examples and (b) a few tips like I mentioned above, would go a long way for practicality. Plus (c) Sam's point that hey, when you're not under pressure, you should really learn at-exps for real. Let me see if I can find time to review the current docs for Planet and the new package system, and see where more examples/tips -- or at least links to examples -- could go, and submit a PR. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
