[racket] syntax, differently

On Aug 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:

>> In a language like Ruby,
>> 
>>  pos.draw
>> 
>> just doesn't care, If pos has an draw field at run-time, good enough.
>> Even if pos isn't a position but happens to have a draw field, just
>> keep on computing.
> 
> This is not quite accurate.  You're conflating representation,
> reaction, and a smidgen of value judgment.  So, for the benefit of
> those who did read your otherwise excellent explanation, here's a more
> accurate description, unfortunately using several big words (because I
> don't have time to write this using small ones with equal precision):
> 
> Structured values mean something very different in
> Ruby/Python/JavaScript than they do in Java and Racket.  In the
> latter, a structured value has a well-defined, fixed set of fields.
> Their names are first-order entities that can be used only in
> dereference positions.  (That's a slight fudge when it comes to
> Racket, but this is a good conceptual model.)
> 
> In contrast, in scripting languages structured values are simply
> associations from values to values.  It makes no sense to say o.f and
> o[10] of the same o in Java, but it does in these languages.  The
> reason is because .f is syntactic sugar for ["f"] (the quotes are
> literal -- they are not meta-syntax).
> 
> That's the semantic representation.

I sit corrected, and what's worse, I know this, have known this 
for a long time, and gave up on integrated python into drscheme
for just that reason. Their syntax is just so misleading that it
lulled me once again into saying something that could be misunderstood. 

;; --- 

> Separate from that is the reaction when something isn't present in the
> association.  There is nothing preventing o.f -- which, as we've
> noted, is really o["f"] in these languages -- from halting with an
> error when "f" isn't associated with o.  If Racket were to adopt an
> association syntax, I sure hope this is what it would do semantically.
> 
> Sadly, the scripting languages prefer to continue evaluating with
> nonsense.  And that's the value judgment.

Yes, and I stand by that judgment. Racket would have to stop evaluating
in such a situation to keep some sanity.