On Aug 23, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:39:14 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > > It certainly is a mighty pity that typing "internal define" yields
> > > no hits in Help Desk. (Eli, are you reading?)
> >
> > It's a matter of adding an index term, IIRC. Maybe Jon will want
> > to a
At Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:39:14 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > It certainly is a mighty pity that typing "internal define" yields
> > no hits in Help Desk. (Eli, are you reading?)
>
> It's a matter of adding an index term, IIRC. Maybe Jon will want to
> add that?
It's already indexed as "internal
On Aug 21, Paul Ojanen wrote:
> I have been forced to learn the options of require due to naming
> conflicts. Is this global masking not being allowed? Or are my
> require conflicts problematic because my imported identifiers are
> coming in AT THE SAME LEVEL? [...]
The latter -- requiring the
On Aug 21, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> I *think* this was in the 5.0.1 release announcement?
The 5.0.1 change was to allow definitions anywhere in the body:
(define (foo)
(printf "hello ")
(define x 'world)
(displayln x))
(Note that that's not in the teaching languages.)
>
On Aug 23, John Clements wrote:
> "Hopefully we can agree that the value of this program is 8 (the
> left x in the addition evaluates to 5, the right x is given the
> value 3 by the inner with, so the sum is 8). The refined
> substitution algorithm, however, converts this expression into
>
> {with
This brings up an interesting moment in PLAI that always elicits totally blank
stares: the moment in lecture that matches this part of the book, on page 34 of
the current online version:
"Hopefully we can agree that the value of this program is 8 (the left x in the
addition evaluates to 5, the
So the short-and-sweet message is that "local" and "internal define" act more
like "letrec" than like "let"? That makes sense, as it allows people to write
recursive functions. Intuitively, it seems useful to have both semantics
available to programmers.
Stephen Bloch
sbl...@adelphi.edu
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 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
> >> Felleisen
> >> Sent: 21 August 2010 17:43
> >> To: Shriram Krishnamurthi
> >> Cc: users@racket-lang.org; Eduardo Cavazos
> >> Subject: Re: [racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket
> >>
> >>
> >> Okay, that's the one thin
t;
>> -Original Message-
>> From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org
>> [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Felleisen
>> Sent: 21 August 2010 17:43
>> To: Shriram Krishnamurthi
>> Cc: users@racket-lang.org; Eduardo Cavazos
>> Su
t 2010 17:43
> To: Shriram Krishnamurthi
> Cc: users@racket-lang.org; Eduardo Cavazos
> Subject: Re: [racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket
>
>
> Okay, that's the one thing why I dislike local and internal define.
> But should we really throw out the
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
racket-lang.org]
>> On Behalf Of Paul Ojanen
>> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 8:17 AM
>> To: 'Eduardo Cavazos'; users@racket-lang.org
>> Subject: Re: [racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket
>>
>> How about these two points from the referenced rationale:
>
ingful variable names, I would say enclosing-scope masking is very
> important as a feature. Not necessary but certainly not useless.
>
> -Paul
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org [mailto:users-boun...@racket-
> lang.org]
> >
sage-
> From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org]
> On Behalf Of Eduardo Cavazos
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 3:33 AM
> To: users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: [racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket
>
> Hello,
>
> The first example in this n
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
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))
21 matches
Mail list logo
