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

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
un-Scheme-ly.

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. :-)

Todd