[racket] A question about code-style (and memory usage)

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 26 15:55:58 EDT 2011

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> 15 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>> If do a "(require racket/set)", I really don't mind if the standard
>> set symbols are also included as aliases in the module, so long as
>> there are corresponding 7-bit ASCII names that I can use instead.
> On an even farther away tangent, I have recently wrote some code so I
> can type `λ' etc conveniently in Emacs[*].  Even though I knew the
> arguments on the subject, I was surprised at just how much more
> convenient it makes things.  I now see no reason to use `thunk' if I
> can just (λ() ...), and in many cases things like `compose' or
> `negate' become unnecessary.
> ([*] I started with something close to what DrRacket does, then went
> with something that I find even more convenient that hooks to the
> Emacs input method thing but lets me use a huge set of names.)

Can you share the improvements/differences? Maybe DrRacket can get
better on this score.


Posted on the users mailing list.