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

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.)

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!