I started this as some quick comments, but it wrote itself into a
long-winded explanation of why what Racket does is following the Lisp
tradition *more* closely than other Lisps. Feel free to skip if
you're not into meta-meta-syntax discussions...
Two hours ago, Danny Yoo wrote:
>
> So there's
Hi All, Just my two cents. :-) I am coming from the "original Lisp" point of
view as well.At the beginning of the discussion I have not undertood any of the
answers. They were"very cryptic" to me as well, but I have to say that these
two papers made clear whatis the position of DrRacket and I un
On Sep 18, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Racket Noob wrote:
> Ok, maybe this is not something that's important in other programming
> languages, but it *is* important in lisps. As a lisp educator, how can you
> *not* to teach this fundamental fact about lisp?
Two questions:
1) How many people here are Li
[CCing the Racket mailing list]
> Yes, I got this to work. But, what if I don't want to use DrRacket, but just
> pure old console Racket.exe instead? Or emacs?
Oh! Then it should just print like Lisp mode, if I remember
correctly. Give me a sec; let me double check that.
;
> Such a cold community. :(
> I give up. I'm sorry for bothering you with my bad english and stupidity,
> I'll never post to this group again.
Hello!
Whoa! I think you are reading a lot more aggression out of those
replies than what actually exists. Your english is fine; no one has
made a singl
On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Racket Noob wrote:
> Such a cold community. :(
Cold? No way! We're *hot*. That is: we're eager to discuss, and eager to argue.
If anything, we're holding back, to avoid making you angry. Maybe we should
have held back a bit more? I know it can feel a bit lonely w
7;ll never post to this group again.
>
>> From: s...@cs.brown.edu
>> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:47:45 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [racket] Quoted expressions in #lang racket
>> To: racketn...@hotmail.com
>> CC: ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu; users@racket-lang.org
>>
>&g
Racket Noob wrote at 09/18/2011 04:41 PM:
Ok, maybe this is not something that's important in other programming
languages, but it *is* important in lisps. As a lisp educator, how can
you *not* to teach this fundamental fact about lisp?
To me, speaking of real use of the language, it seems a lo
Such a cold community. :(
I give up. I'm sorry for bothering you with my bad english and stupidity, I'll
never post to this group again.
> From: s...@cs.brown.edu
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:47:45 -0400
> Subject: Re: [racket] Quoted expressions in #lang racket
> To:
> Ok, maybe this is not something that's important in other programming
> languages, but it *is* important in lisps. As a lisp educator, how can you
> *not* to teach this fundamental fact about lisp?
It's funny that here you're berating Robby, who's put more time into
different ways of printing th
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
>> FWIW, as one PL educator, I don't find that to be something I wish to
>> teach to the students who are beginning to learn what is important
>> about programming languages. I also don't think that a list is a
>> particularly good representation for a function application i
> FWIW, as one PL educator, I don't find that to be something I wish to
> teach to the students who are beginning to learn what is important
> about programming languages. I also don't think that a list is a
> particularly good representation for a function application in an
> implementation and a
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
> I think beginner should understand that list is basic lisp notion which
> serves (at least) two purposes:
>
> 1) list as data: as in (1 2 3) or as in whole lisp program
>
> or
>
> 2) list as expression denoting function application: as in (+ 1 2)
FWIW, as one PL educator,
We are not teaching Lisp. We're teaching Racket.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
> I kindly suggest the thought that omitting the quote is precisely what
> makes things harder for beginners. It seems to suggest to the
> untrained that REPL is returning something that is not a value. As
> Matthias and others have pointed out, you can not take the "value" (1
> 2 3) and use it s
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
>
> You can't compute (car (1 2 3)) because before car even begin, it's
> parameter, list (1 2 3) must be evaluated, but 1 is not a procedure name. It
> is different than in (quote (1 2 3)) where such evaluation doesn't take
> place.
>
Yes, so does that not alert you that
On Sep 18, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Racket Noob wrote:
>
> > You keep thinking (1 2 3) is the canonical form of a list. It is
> > not. It's just a particular *print representation* of list. So is
> > # or one of the many alternatives Eli proposed.
> >
>
> Oh, I understand that. It's just that I don'
> It's just that I don't understand why you (i.e.
> Racket implementers) choose Racket by default prints list this
> way (different than all other lisps). I think this choice can confuse
> [...] users who switches from different lisp
> implementations [...]
Then it nicely accomplishes the task of
Just because Lisp got it wrong for 22+ years and most Lisps are still doing it
wrong, we don't have to continue making the same mistake. Long live 2Lisp,
3Lisp, and all other rational Lisps.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list
> You keep thinking (1 2 3) is the canonical form of a list. It is
> not. It's just a particular *print representation* of list. So is
> # or one of the many alternatives Eli proposed.
> Oh, I understand that. It's just that I don't understand why you (i.e. Racket
> implementers) choose Racke
You keep thinking (1 2 3) is the canonical form of a list. It is
not. It's just a particular *print representation* of list. So is
# or one of the many alternatives Eli proposed.
Your attempt to use an interpreter model is commendable but falls
short. That is because you only described the REA
gret...@acm.org
> To: matth...@ccs.neu.edu
> CC: e...@barzilay.org; s...@cs.brown.edu; users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [racket] Quoted expressions in #lang racket
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
> >
> > Mr Noob: if (1 2 3) is
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Mr Noob: if (1 2 3) is a value, why can't I compute (car (1 2 3)). 4 is a
> value and I can compute (+ 4 3). #t is a value and I can compute (not #t).
> Why do you insist that I cannot compute with (1 2 3) if it is a value?
Maybe R
3) as in Racket, because
quote is already "consumed" in step 2) when evaluator "eats" it while processed
the quote special form. For me, it's just plain wrong to print '(1 2 3) because
quote is already gone.
> From: s...@cs.brown.edu
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 12:22
Mr Noob: if (1 2 3) is a value, why can't I compute (car (1 2 3)). 4 is a value
and I can compute (+ 4 3). #t is a value and I can compute (not #t). Why do you
insist that I cannot compute with (1 2 3) if it is a value?
_
For list-related admini
20 minutes ago, Racket Noob wrote:
>
> Saying that (quote (1 2 3)) evaluates to (quote (1 2 3)) [instead to
> (1 2 3)] is the same nonsanse to me like saying that (+ 1 2)
> evaluates to (+ 1 2) [instead to 3].
Yet another view:
(+ 1 2) evaluates to 3 is nonsense, it really evaluates to three.
(
On Sep 18, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Racket Noob wrote:
> Saying that (quote (1 2 3)) evaluates to (quote (1 2 3)) [instead to (1 2 3)]
> is the same nonsanse to me like saying that (+ 1 2) evaluates to (+ 1 2)
> [instead to 3].
Be careful with words like "nonsense" :).
What does 3 evaluate to?
3
I used different words than Matthias because we were trying to offer
somewhat different explanations of what is happening. You chose to
use his words in response to mine, which only confuses things further.
(There is, incidentally, a good reason why (+ 1 2) could, but does
not, evaluate to (+ 1 2
Saying that (quote (1 2 3)) evaluates to (quote (1 2 3)) [instead to (1 2 3)]
is the same nonsanse to me like saying that (+ 1 2) evaluates to (+ 1 2)
[instead to 3].
> From: s...@cs.brown.edu
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:15:41 -0400
> Subject: Re: [racket] Quoted expressions in #la
Yep, that's what he's saying.
I know why you're confused. Let me see if I can help.
Here's an input program:
'(1 2 3)
Now be careful to make the following distinction:
- what it computes
- what it prints
What it computes is a list with three values. There are at least
three different ways
> >> In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
>
>
> No it doesn't. In CL and Clojure, '(1 2 3) evaluates to '(1 2 3) and then the
> printer turns it into (1 2 3).
>
Wait a minute, I dont get it! You are saying that (quote (1 2 3)) evaluates to
(quote (1 2
On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Grant Rettke wrote:
> 2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
>> In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
No it doesn't. In CL and Clojure, '(1 2 3) evaluates to '(1 2 3) and then the
printer turns it into (1 2 3).
Now imagine you wish to experi
At Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:15:58 +0200, Racket Noob wrote:
> In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
> But in #lang racket the same expression evaluates to '(1 2 3).
> Why?
In Racket, as in Common Lisp and Clojure, the expression
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
> In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
> But in #lang racket the same expression evaluates to '(1 2 3). Why?
In the bottom left hand of the screen in DrRacket click the "Choose
Language" dropdown, "Use the language declared in source" sh
In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
But in #lang racket the same expression evaluates to '(1 2 3). Why?
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-l
35 matches
Mail list logo
