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 percent of used functions are "math operations" -- my guess is that it's going to be very small. While I can see some reasons behind having infix syntax, namely -- asymmetric binary prediates -- most of it can be resolved within s-expressions (I have described it in SRFI-156 <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-156/srfi-156.html>). Another place where I think infix could be handy is in functions' type signatures in typed/racket. I believe that, rather than (: list-length (All (A) (-> (Listof A) Integer))) it would be better to write something like: (declare list-length : (All (A) (Listof A) -> Integer)) or (declare (list-length (Listof ,A)) -> Integer) But this also could be easily achievable within the realm of s-expressions. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/a22f254b-8fc6-437d-9bf2-1b56cd271508%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
