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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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.
