> The language is composed of 5 forms - help, flag, constraint, program, > and run. With these 5 forms, you get all of the functionality of the > built-in parse-command-line form, and with syntax that's much simpler. In > fact, the nontrivial forms of the language simply use Racket's normal > function definition syntax, so there's very little to learn -- you > basically write normal functions and they are implicitly wired to accept > their inputs via the command line. >
Could we add require? I can think of two compelling reasons: 1. What else is available in the program form? All of racket, or just racket/base? And either way, what if I want to use procedures from other packages? 2. What if I want to write a bunch of library code, and expose some of it in a CLI script? I do this now in different ways: a module+ main that uses code defined in the enclosing module, or a script that requires auxiliary modules. Often the "body" of the program form isn't more than a call to a "main" procedure: this enables me to provide that procedure as part of the library, too. -- 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/a0a0ffba-b8a5-4b57-8fc1-b24a821de85cn%40googlegroups.com.
