On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Samuel Williams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This question is a little bit off topic, but I am writing some documents
> about Scheme and wondering if there was some easy way to draw cons cells
> with LaTeX. I tried to search for something but had no luck.. >
Well,
I'm not sure if th
On Aug 21, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
Your reduction of this guideline to what you claim Hansen preached (I
haven't seen that essay) is unfair. The D guideline does not say
"don't have nested scope". It says to not allow lexical re-binding,
which is a much, much finer
I *think* this was in the 5.0.1 release announcement?
It certainly is a mighty pity that typing "internal define" yields no
hits in Help Desk. (Eli, are you reading?)
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Engelberg
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
> wrote:
>> Or
Your reduction of this guideline to what you claim Hansen preached (I
haven't seen that essay) is unfair. The D guideline does not say
"don't have nested scope". It says to not allow lexical re-binding,
which is a much, much finer point.
Given how many languages get this sort of thing just plain
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Frederick Ross wrote:
>
> Not correct. Thanks to all those who answered with ideas, and they're
> all very good ideas. Dumping images and loading them remotely is a
> dirty, ugly hack. I admit it openly and freely, and would never
> consider it if I weren't *se
I think that the email list could use a better understanding of the problem.
Could you say more about why an image dump would be desirable?
For example, is there a reason that you cannot simply generate a small
Scheme code file to that temporary directory, expressing whatever is
needed for the
Could you run Racket processes that exchange plain source text (as in
S-expressions)?
On Aug 21, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Frederick Ross wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM, YC wrote:
>> It seems like all you need is a batch architecture in racket, is that
>> correct? I am assuming the foll
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> Or if you prefer the new direction we're going in:
> (define (bar x)
> (lambda ()
> (define x x)
> x))
I like the new direction. Where are all the possible places that a
define can go without wrapping it in a local? How do
Thanks for correcting me
Jos
> -Original Message-
> From: shri...@gmail.com [mailto:shri...@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Shriram Krishnamurthi
> Sent: 21 August 2010 19:01
> To: Jos Koot
> Cc: Matthias Felleisen; users@racket-lang.org; Eduardo Cavazos
> Subject: Re: [racket] Nested scope in
Jos, we are talking about *static* nested definitions.
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Jos Koot wrote:
> I don't consider this a flaw in the language. How are we going to write a
> recursive function when not allowing
> (define (x arg) expr-possibly-calling-x-recursively)?
> Not by a Y-combinat
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM, YC wrote:
> It seems like all you need is a batch architecture in racket, is that
> correct? I am assuming the following:
Not correct. Thanks to all those who answered with ideas, and they're
all very good ideas. Dumping images and loading them remotely is a
di
I don't consider this a flaw in the language. How are we going to write a
recursive function when not allowing
(define (x arg) expr-possibly-calling-x-recursively)?
Not by a Y-combinator I hope.
I think the following is not too difficult to explain to beginning
programmers.
In (define (x arg) ...
Okay, that's the one thing why I dislike local and internal define.
But should we really throw out the idea of nested x defs for this
one flaw?
On Aug 21, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>>
>> It's not about te
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> It's not about teaching, it's about freedom of expression.
> This is one of the least problems for programmers and I can't
> think of a bug I have seen that involved this issue.
Radio Free Matthias is broadcasting from back his Schem
In HtDP/2e they are drawn with slideshow. It's all Racket programming from
here.
On Aug 21, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Samuel Williams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This question is a little bit off topic, but I am writing some documents
> about Scheme and wondering if there was some easy way to draw cons cells
The entire justification of the D design sounds like an essay
by Hansen in 1980 on why nested scope is bad and modules (= files +.h)
is all you need.
It's not about teaching, it's about freedom of expression.
This is one of the least problems for programmers and I can't
think of a bug I have
Hi,
This question is a little bit off topic, but I am writing some documents about
Scheme and wondering if there was some easy way to draw cons cells with LaTeX.
I tried to search for something but had no luck..
Thanks,
Samuel
_
For list-relate
Hmm...I think I missed a distinction in modularity. The quote says nested
scopes don't directly aid in providing separate library file modularity.
But the abstraction example I used was inner function modularity which does
not span multiple files.
The given rationale makes sense only in the conte
How about these two points from the referenced rationale:
1. "Allowing global symbol masking is necessary for writing good modular
code that's assembled out of separately compiled parts..."
2. "...enclosing-scope masking is useless as a modularity device..."
#1 What exactly is global symbol mas
On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:32 AM, Eduardo Cavazos wrote:
(let ((a 20))
(let ((a 30))
...))
It sounds like the D designers are "protecting" the programmers.
The Racket team is of course concerned with the "teachability" of
their languages and have experience with the known pitfalls in
lan
On 21/08/2010 04:00, Grant Rettke wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
Programmers should be held to the standards of the medical profession,
but they are in practice held to almost no standards.
What is in it for the business?
Most companies don't see
Hello,
The first example in this note is illegal in the D programming language:
http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/2010-August/081424.html
Coming from a Scheme background, I was surprised as this is allowed in
Scheme. I.e. this is the quivalent code in Scheme:
(let ((a 20))
22 matches
Mail list logo
