[racket] future

CTRL-\ might become your best friend, then. It inserts an 
honest-to-goodness lambda.

I *never* write "lambda" anymore in Racket code.

Neil T

On 08/30/2011 09:45 AM, Richard Cleis wrote:
> I want to be able to:
>
> #lang racket/L ; sacrifice L in honor of profoundly useful lambda
>
> rac
>
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>
>>> it wouldn't be necessary to create all these duplicate forms to avoid
>>> writing (lambda () ...) This would cut down on code, and also make the
>>> language more consistent.
>>
>> I think Noel has it exactly right.
>>
>> The common concept is "thunk".
>>
>> The desire is, how to say it more succinctly.
>>
>> Surely there should be one way to say it more succinctly, which works
>> with many forms?  As opposed to many forms each needing its variation
>> to say the one thing more succinctly?
>>
>>
>> So: How to say it more succinctly than (lambda () e)?  Or even the
>> i-can-haz-unicode way, (λ () e)?
>>
>> (thunk e) is a first approximation. But, "thunk" is jargon, and it's
>> barely more succinct than (lambda () e).
>>
>> So, how about any of these as the super succinct way:
>> (() e)
>> (\ e)
>> (λ e)
>>
>> ??
>>
>> Actually I'm fine with (lambda () e) or (λ () e). I don't think a
>> couple extra parens are horrible, or I'd be writing C# or
>> cortex-fudge. And I don't think it's horrible for functions to be
>> first-class, and to express "here's some stuff to do" as "here's a
>> function".
>>
>> 2011/8/29 Noel Welsh<noelwelsh at gmail.com>:
>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Eli Barzilay<eli at barzilay.org>  wrote:
>>>> There's also the semi-popular syntax extension change, like {E ...}
>>>> expanding to (λ () E ...), but that looks very confusing with
>>>> something like (thread {(printf "foo\n")}) -- so maybe do that with
>>>> the outer form: {thread (printf "foo\n")}.  Or maybe do that with a
>>>> macro instead: (e thread (printf "foo\n")), which will probably go the
>>>> way of `nested'.
>>>
>>> Yeah, what about solving the problem of lambda's verbosity directly?
>>> If fn or \ was shorthand for lambda, or
>>>
>>> { a1 ... | expr ... }
>>>
>>> expanded to
>>>
>>> (lambda (a1 ...) expr ...)
>>>
>>> it wouldn't be necessary to create all these duplicate forms to avoid
>>> writing (lambda () ...) This would cut down on code, and also make the
>>> language more consistent.
>>>
>>> N.
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________
>>>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>    For list-related administrative tasks:
>    http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users