Hi Neil,
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:28:29 -0500, Neil Van Dyke
wrote:
>In current Racket, the defining module wasn't expecting its own
>procedure definition to change out from under it, and other users of
>that module also weren't expecting it to change.
>
>Racket semantics for procedures seems goo
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 4:35 PM Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>
> Den tir. 8. jan. 2019 kl. 21.40 skrev David Storrs :
>>
>>
>> This. In an ideal world, before/after/around would be parameterized so that
>> you can make the change only for a defined scope.
>>
>> Still, the intent was never that it wou
Den tir. 8. jan. 2019 kl. 21.40 skrev David Storrs :
>
> This. In an ideal world, before/after/around would be parameterized so
> that you can make the change only for a defined scope.
>
Still, the intent was never that it would extend its effects outside the
> current module.
>
In that case you
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:47 PM Eric Griffis wrote:
> Apologies for the backtracking, but I'm still having trouble understanding
> before/after/between and ordinary function composition. For non-method
> functions, what's the difference?
>
Easy extension of existing code. For example:
(define
Sorry, I think I was being very unclear. I was only discouraging
something `defadvice`-like mutating the behavior of normal Racket
procedures, which looks like what was probably originally described:
> (define (greet name)
(println (string-append "Hi, " name)))
[...]
> (before greet ~a)
My bad. I confused ordinary with generic.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 9:47 AM Eric Griffis Apologies for the backtracking, but I'm still having trouble understanding
> before/after/between and ordinary function composition. For non-method
> functions, what's the difference?
>
> Also, I'd never heard of
Hi Neil,
On 1/7/2019 9:58 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
George Neuner wrote on 1/7/19 4:49 PM:
Though I mostly agree with you, your "advice" does have its uses:
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/object-reorientation-generic-functions.html
in particular see the sections on method combinations.
Apologies for the backtracking, but I'm still having trouble understanding
before/after/between and ordinary function composition. For non-method
functions, what's the difference?
Also, I'd never heard of these functions as a Perl dev. A quick search
turns up Moose. Is that what you're talking abo
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:58 PM Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> George Neuner wrote on 1/7/19 4:49 PM:
> > Though I mostly agree with you, your "advice" does have its uses:
> >
> >
> http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/object-reorientation-generic-functions.html
> > in particular see the sections on method
David Thrane Christiansen wrote on 1/7/19 6:02 PM:
A quick grep of the source makes it look like there's at least some support for
these. But the docs are certainly less easy to navigate than Scribble docs!
The developer of Swindle, Eli Barzilay, was one of the developers of
Scribble, as well
George Neuner wrote on 1/7/19 4:49 PM:
Though I mostly agree with you, your "advice" does have its uses:
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/object-reorientation-generic-functions.html
in particular see the sections on method combinations.
Thank you; I should've looked it up before incorrectly
> Swindle/CLOS does implement generic functions, but I'm not aware that it
> also implements the before / after / around methods that we have been
> talking about. But then, it does so much I may just have missed
> something ... its documentation can be tough to read at times.
A quick grep of the
On 1/7/2019 5:32 PM, David Thrane Christiansen wrote:
> The basic generics machinery isn't terribly hard to implement inside a
> compiler. I'm not sure though how I would do it on top of Racket. I'm
> sure I could hack up some ugly macros that would work, but it seems like
> it needs to be a
> The basic generics machinery isn't terribly hard to implement inside a
> compiler. I'm not sure though how I would do it on top of Racket. I'm
> sure I could hack up some ugly macros that would work, but it seems like
> it needs to be a language to be done right.
What about Swindle?
https://
On 1/7/2019 2:23 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
George Neuner wrote on 1/7/19 1:12 PM:
Your examples look a lot like what is possible using Lisp's generic
functions: specifically "before", "after" and "around" functions.
Before/after/around are what I call "advice". Advice is a lifesaver
when y
George Neuner wrote on 1/7/19 1:12 PM:
Your examples look a lot like what is possible using Lisp's generic
functions: specifically "before", "after" and "around" functions.
Before/after/around are what I call "advice". Advice is a lifesaver
when you need it and there's no good documented inte
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:12 PM George Neuner wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 1/7/2019 12:57 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>
> I haven't worked with Racket's generics before, but a quick skim through
> the documentation suggests that no, that's not it. Racket generics appear
> to relate to collections and st
Hi David,
On 1/7/2019 12:57 PM, David Storrs wrote:
I haven't worked with Racket's generics before, but a quick skim
through the documentation suggests that no, that's not it. Racket
generics appear to relate to collections and structs, whereas I was
looking for something that operates on arb
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 13:30:43 -0500, David Storrs
> wrote:
>
> >Racket's OO system has the 'augment' family of functionality that allows
> >you to change how a function works. I'm wondering if there's a way to do
> >something similar in functi
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 13:30:43 -0500, David Storrs
wrote:
>Racket's OO system has the 'augment' family of functionality that allows
>you to change how a function works. I'm wondering if there's a way to do
>something similar in functional Racket. For example, when I was working in
>Perl I used to
20 matches
Mail list logo
