Point in case: Greg Hendershott's recent blog post about adapting struct constructors to use keyword arguments using syntax-parse. http://www.greghendershott.com/2015/07/keyword-structs-revisited.html
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’ll second Stephen’s point about keyword arguments. They’re quite common > in idiomatic Racket, and they are probably the most direct way to address > the points you’ve mentioned. > > Another tool that Racket gives you to make scripting very easy is the > ability to create fairly expressive DSLs with little effort. I think the > best way to do this is to create a macro or set of macros that expands to > simple functions (e.g. +sound), and then still provide those functions to > the user if they want to do more complex things with them than the DSL > provides. For a good example of this, see racket/cmdline’s `command-line` > and `parse-command-line`. > > For more details, see the documentation for syntax-parse, which can > effectively be a DSL for writing DSLs. It can be used for anything from > adding a little sugar to creating a composable macro for handling whole > batches of operations to creating a whole #lang as a scripting DSL. > > Alexis > > -- > 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.
