Perhaps by making 'cursor' relative to 'view'?
Then you could always declare / assert that
(>= cursor-x 0)
(< cursor-x (screen-width))
; and similarly for cursor-y
Neil
Original Message
From: Amirouche Boubekki
Sent: Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:40
To: Guile User
Subject: Two variables
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Christopher Allan Webber
wrote:
> I'd be open to the change... if we're going to do the change, we should
> do it now, when I'm pretty much the only user. I wonder what David
> Thompson thinks?
FWIW this is what Racket does, so there is precedent there, but Mar
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> Christopher Allan Webber :
>> ((name . "buttercup")
>>(age . 6)
>>(animal . "horse")
>>(food . #("carrot" "oats"))
>>(mood-noises
>> ("frustrated" . "haurrrfff")
>> ("happy" . "negh")
>> ("angry" . "*SNORT*")))
>>
>> I'd be open to the
Thompson, David writes:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Christopher Allan Webber
> wrote:
>
>> I'd be open to the change... if we're going to do the change, we should
>> do it now, when I'm pretty much the only user. I wonder what David
>> Thompson thinks?
>
> FWIW this is what Racket does,
Paul (2017-04-25 12:21 -0400) wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 11:50 AM, Jan Wedekind wrote:
>
>> What do people think? I'm struggling with deciding what's the right
>> thing for my own code, but leaning towards "we shouldn't use the ?
>> suffix for just boolean values".
>
> I like using the '?' suffix onl
