I'll second-third Alexis and Stephen. But if you really want these things to
run in a Scheme in addition to Racket, you may wish to emulated big-bang and
universe style "keywords" because Schemes don't do #:loop keywords. You won't
have to change surface syntax or modify the reader of a Scheme
Point in case: Greg Hendershott's recent blog post about adapting struct
constructors to use keyword arguments using syntax-parse.
http://www.greghendershott.com/2015/07/keyword-structs-revisited.html
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Alexis King wrote:
> I’ll second Stephen’s point about keyword
I’ll second Stephen’s point about keyword arguments. They’re quite common in
idiomatic Racket, and they are probably the most direct way to address the
points you’ve mentioned.
Another tool that Racket gives you to make scripting very easy is the ability
to create fairly expressive DSLs with li
Just realized that the first link is not very useful. These might be
more informative:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/application.html?q=keyword#%28part._keyword-args%29
http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/contracts-general-functions.html?q=keyword#%28part._contracts-keywords%29
On Mon, Jul 6, 2
Racket has linguistic support for keyword arguments, which address
many of the issues you raised:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/keywords.html
Would this help in your case?
Additional background: http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/scheme09-fb.pdf
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, John Car
A primary goal of the scripting work is that it should be easy to do easy
things. You shouldn't have to specify all the options if you just want to play
a sound or show a picture, but you should still be able to get at them when you
need them.
For the case of a sound effect, all of the followi
6 matches
Mail list logo
