Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Stephen Chang
> Perhaps this isn’t applicable in this case, but may I suggest a less-common > alternative: no prefixing at all? If you put all the commands into a separate > module, users of the module can use ‘prefix-in’ to choose whatever prefix > they prefer. Prefixes (and suffixes) have two purposes. One

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Neil Van Dyke
Alexis King wrote on 07/03/2015 06:33 PM: Perhaps this isn’t applicable in this case, but may I suggest a less-common alternative: no prefixing at all? If you put all the commands into a separate module, users of the module can use ‘prefix-in’ to choose whatever prefix they prefer. For reusa

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Alexis King
Perhaps this isn’t applicable in this case, but may I suggest a less-common alternative: no prefixing at all? If you put all the commands into a separate module, users of the module can use ‘prefix-in’ to choose whatever prefix they prefer. This can be paired with documentation that uses a part

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Robby Findler
We clearly need keyboards like this: http://9gag.com/gag/5551148/the-entire-chinese-keyboard On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Stephen Chang wrote: >> The prefixes are based on this file: >> https://github.com/racket/gui/blob/master/tex-table/tex-table.rkt >> >> Maybe there are missing ones you're

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Stephen Chang
> The prefixes are based on this file: > https://github.com/racket/gui/blob/master/tex-table/tex-table.rkt > > Maybe there are missing ones you're used to? Sorry, that was supposed to be a compliment! I love DrRacket's support for unicode and I havent wanted any symbols that aren't already support

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Robby Findler
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Stephen Chang wrote: > I've been going this route more, especially because DrRacket supports > autocompletion of (what it deems) unique latex prefixes. The prefixes are based on this file: https://github.com/racket/gui/blob/master/tex-table/tex-table.rkt Maybe th

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Stephen Chang
> You also have unicode available to you. IDE support can help with this > -- I think the cmd-\ for lambda has worked pretty well. I've been going this route more, especially because DrRacket supports autocompletion of (what it deems) unique latex prefixes. For example, in DrRacket, type "\G", fol

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Matthias Felleisen
1. +1 on Neil's +sound and +set-position convention (as a private Racket citizen not the style guide author) 2. When I find myself writing such code now, I often write a syntactic extension that gives me some flexibility in how I want to do it: (commands (sound ...) (set-position ...) ..

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Neil Toronto
On 07/03/2015 12:32 PM, John Carmack wrote: I am using a “cmd-name!” naming format for functions that are adding to the command list that will be communicated to the host program. (cmd-sound! WAV-FILE) (cmd-set-position! pos yaw-radians) Etc. I am considering using a terser naming convention,

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Robby Findler
You also have unicode available to you. IDE support can help with this -- I think the cmd-\ for lambda has worked pretty well. Robby On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Chang wrote: >> What symbols have the least historic baggage? > > I've gone through this exercise a few times, and each ti

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Stephen Chang
> What symbols have the least historic baggage? I've gone through this exercise a few times, and each time settled on '$'. As Greg points out, pretty much every one of my my Racket libraries makes use of this symbol (was it that obvious? :) ) exactly because I was looking for something that Racke

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Neil Van Dyke
General comment on the naming conventions we come up with... These punctuation characters that typically require a shift modifier might be pleasing to the eye, but unpleasing to the typist. Incidentally, while "@" might have lower typing cost than "cmd-", I think it's more than 1/4 the typing

RE: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread John Carmack
I tried $ first, but it scans so close to an S that it hurt readability. -Original Message- From: Greg Hendershott [mailto:greghendersh...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 11:53 AM To: John Carmack Cc: racket-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [racket-users] API function naming

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Greg Hendershott
One idea is to use $ as prefix. It probably connotes "command" among Unix-y folks, at least. (Although I've seen $ used as a prefix in e.g. combinator libraries like Parsack, I don't think it has any universal meaning like that which would make it seem weird for your purposes?) On Fri, Jul 3, 2

Re: [racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread Greg Hendershott
I'd avoid @ because it's used for "at-expressions", e.g. #lang scribble or even simply #lang at-exp racket. On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:32 PM, John Carmack wrote: > I am using a “cmd-name!” naming format for functions that are adding to the > command list that will be communicated to the host prog

[racket-users] API function naming

2015-07-03 Thread John Carmack
I am using a "cmd-name!" naming format for functions that are adding to the command list that will be communicated to the host program. (cmd-sound! WAV-FILE) (cmd-set-position! pos yaw-radians) Etc. I am considering using a terser naming convention, perhaps "@name", so you would have: (@sound W