Cool. Thank you, Robby and Matthias.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> If you want to know what the current racket does (not what the
> chez-based one does), then you can "raco make x.rkt" and then "raco
> decompile x.rkt" to see what is going on.
>
> In the cod quoted be
If you want to know what the current racket does (not what the
chez-based one does), then you can "raco make x.rkt" and then "raco
decompile x.rkt" to see what is going on.
In the cod quoted below, no closures are allocated because all of the
functions bar, baz, and jaz are eliminated before runti
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 9:19 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:55 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:50 PM, David Storrs
>>> wrote:
Coming from a Perl background, I've long had a c
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:55 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:50 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>>> Coming from a Perl background, I've long had a convention of naming
>>> private functions with a leading underscore, e.g
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Also: if you just don't `provide` a function from a module, then it
> cannot be used outside. No naming conventions necessary.
>
Sure, but the underscore helps me know at a glance what I'm looking
at, whether it's safe to make a breaking cha
Robby Findler writes:
> Also: if you just don't `provide` a function from a module, then it
> cannot be used outside. No naming conventions necessary.
But the no-naming convention is necessary.
:-).
--
---
Eric Eide
Also: if you just don't `provide` a function from a module, then it
cannot be used outside. No naming conventions necessary.
Robby
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:55 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:50 PM, David Storrs
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:55 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:50 PM, David Storrs wrote:
>> Coming from a Perl background, I've long had a convention of naming
>> private functions with a leading underscore, e.g. _do-the-thing. Is
>> there a standard Racket convention for th
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:50 PM, David Storrs wrote:
> Coming from a Perl background, I've long had a convention of naming
> private functions with a leading underscore, e.g. _do-the-thing. Is
> there a standard Racket convention for this and, if so, what is it?
Addendum: I know that I can defi
9 matches
Mail list logo
