[racket] Functional mutators (was: syntax, differently)

From: Todd O'Bryan (toddobryan at gmail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 3 09:26:21 EDT 2010

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> You are entitled to as many peeves as you'd like. The neat thing
> is that Racket's identifier syntax is liberal and allows you to
> use dots. I have been doing so for years :-) and I didn't complain
> to the mailing list.

But you should have, or at least should have mentioned it somewhere.
Conventions that expert programmers settle upon to organize their code
are worth sharing with people. Using a dash as a word separator and
concept separator is confusing, but I felt a little heretical when I
started naming my functions with
data-type-to-manipulate.action-to-perform because I thought it was

One thing that Scheme/Racket lacks is the wealth of stylistic advice
that languages like C++, Java, Python, etc. have in abundance. Maybe
it's because Schemers/Racketeers figure other people can figure out
how to name their variables to keep the code well organized, but it
just isn't so. :-)


Posted on the users mailing list.