[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       racket-dev
Subject:    [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21108: master branch updated
From:       robby () eecs ! northwestern ! edu (Robby Findler)
Date:       2010-09-17 17:11:39
Message-ID: AANLkTik7oD1iZ+Vuv=2Tp8ojkNOYYb5HEx5ykXONtbjo () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Sure, a parameter is fine. And since we're going to have a paramter,
then defaulting to the old way seems best.

Thanks!

Robby

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Casey Klein
<clklein at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Robby Findler
> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Casey Klein
>> <clklein at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:39 AM, ?<robby at racket-lang.org> wrote:
>>>> robby has updated `master' from c6fc7137ee to ce211ac364.
>>>> ?http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/c6fc7137ee..ce211ac364
>>>>
>>>> =====[ 1 Commits ]======================================================
>>>>
>>>> Directory summary:
>>>> ?10.1% collects/redex/private/
>>>> ?83.2% collects/redex/tests/bmps-macosx/
>>>> ? 6.6% collects/redex/tests/
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> ce211ac Robby Findler <robby at racket-lang.org> 2010-09-17 11:39
>>>> :
>>>> | adjusted metafunction application rendering so that ellipses do not
>>>> | get commas put in front of them
>>>> :
>>>
>>> FWIW, if I were typesetting this example by hand, I would have done it
>>> the old way
>>>
>>> ? rdups[| x_1, x_2, ..., x_1, x_3, ... |]
>>>
>>> not the new way
>>>
>>> ? rdups[| x_1, x_2 ..., x_1, x_3 ... |]
>>>
>>> but maybe I'm alone in that preference.
>>
>> I had thought that for a while, but some examples I'm working with
>> today get really confusing when you do that and just seem ugly. The
>> ellipses really isn't a separate item in the argument list; it is an
>> operator on the thing that comes before and the lack of a paren
>> emphasizes this properly.
>>
>> IMO.
>>
>
> In that case, maybe there should be a parameter? (I'll be the one to
> add it if you want.)
>
> This rendering seems like a departure from convention. The first two
> books I pulled off my shelf (_Semantics of Programming Languages_ and
> _Invitation to Discrete Mathematics_) do it the old way.
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]