(Just my two cents, because in my scanning of this thread so far, I don’t
*think* I have seen this…)
Hmm; there are still languages where function and procedure are two
syntactically-different things (and subroutine is a useful “overall" term there
so you don’t have to always say “procedure or
I was thinking about how to document #lang plisqin, a language I am working
on. I wanted to use the "examples" procedure from scribble/example. But it
looks like when you use the #:lang option, it disables evaluation and
printing of results. (The typesetting works fine though.)
I came up with a
On 1/22/19 6:56 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> [25 messages]
>
>
> I think Wadler's Law needs an update.
Long live the internet!
Op: Should we call them functions or procedures?
A: Functions!
B: Functions!
C: Functions!
D: Functions!
E: But it's a procedural language, and we've called them proce
On 1/22/2019 6:25 PM, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
>> I disagree on one more point. It is not necessary to always remember
>> the low level character of code running on a machine, if the language
>> we are using abstracts it well and guarantees us, that there will not
>> be strange effects in all t
>
> [25 messages]
>
I think Wadler's Law needs an update.
--
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.
For more op
On 1/23/19 12:32 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:52:15AM -0500, George Neuner wrote:
>
>> I am arguing that, in computing, functions and procedures have no
>> significant difference, and that distinguishing them erroneously conflates
>> computing with mathematics and thus con
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 12:10:13AM -0500, George Neuner wrote:
>
> As Ellen already mentioned, fixed width integers - although exact values -
> have computational properties that are not shared with mathematical
> integers. As soon as the computation overflows, all bets are off ... any
> number o
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:52:15AM -0500, George Neuner wrote:
>
> I am arguing that, in computing, functions and procedures have no
> significant difference, and that distinguishing them erroneously conflates
> computing with mathematics and thus confuses people.
The distinction I've heard from
On 1/22/19 11:08 PM, George Neuner wrote:
>
> On 1/22/2019 2:31 PM, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
>> If the terms procedures and functions in computing have no
>> significant difference, then why use two terms for the same thing, of
>> which one is already used in mathematics, enabling confusion to appe
On 1/22/2019 2:31 PM, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
If the terms procedures and functions in computing have no significant
difference, then why use two terms for the same thing, of which one is
already used in mathematics, enabling confusion to appear?
This would make a fine argument for not using
If the terms procedures and functions in computing have no significant
difference, then why use two terms for the same thing, of which one is
already used in mathematics, enabling confusion to appear?
This would make a fine argument for not using the word "function" for
computing at all and kee
On 1/22/2019 10:36 AM, Matt Jadud wrote:
My initial wild guess is that the problem is in the queen. Going
by the
description it's way overly complicated, with plenty of opportunities
for something to get lost.
Perhaps. It's not a long driver, as code goes.
Length really isn
On 21/01/2019 21:01, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Hi,
>
> That's an improper end to a list. It means a structure of pairs in
> which the CDR (right element) of the last pair is not the null list.
>
Thanks again for your detailed and pedagogic answer.
I have replaced 'cons' by 'list' and it is ok.
Hello,
I am looking for some way to expand syntax (that is, without evaluation,
just syntax -> syntax transform) during another macro expansion (main-test.rkt
in the following example) using the foreign module namespace (need to use
prog and simple-act transformation rules from foreign modules)
> No kidding?
>
*cough*
My initial wild guess is that the problem is in the queen. Going by the
> description it's way overly complicated, with plenty of opportunities
> for something to get lost.
>
Perhaps. It's not a long driver, as code goes.
>
> Your whole architecture seems overly compli
On 1/22/19 6:49 AM, Jos Koot wrote:
> "It is often the case that
> arbitrary procedures don't compose meaningfully, whereas procedures that
> represent functions always compose meaningfully. "
>
> functions f and g can be composed meaningfully only if the domain of
> f is compa
You write:
> "It is often the case that
> arbitrary procedures don't compose meaningfully, whereas procedures that
> represent functions always compose meaningfully. "
>
> functions f and g can be composed meaningfully only if the domain of f is
> compatible with the co-domain of g.
Jos
--
You
On 1/21/2019 8:56 PM, Matt Jadud wrote:
Hi all,
I have too much code for a "minimal working example."
Every time I run a distributed places program, I get different
results. Sadly, it's complex, and I'm confident there are multiple
places I could be missing something. This is all running on
18 matches
Mail list logo
