[racket] Rosetta Code

I would definitely prefer to see 

#lang racket

(define (dot-product l r)
  (for/sum ([x l] [y r]) (* x y)))

over a repl example. REPL makes it look non-real. 


On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:

> A few minutes ago, Danny Yoo wrote:
>> Yup; I've been doing so a little bit, fixing up some of the code
>> snippets so they work on sequences rather than just on lists, and
>> using "raise-argument-error" in favor of just plain error, since the
>> error messages are better.  For example:
>> 
>>    http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Dot_product#Racket
>>    http://rosettacode.org/wiki/A%2BB#Racket
> 
> Two comments:
> 
> * IMO having complete #lang-ed files is much better, since people get
>  a working template file rather than a repl demonstration.
> 
> * -1 for the pedantics of errors etc in the second example -- I think
>  that the main goal of these things is for quick impressions, and for
>  that second example, a half-line
> 
>    (+ (read) (read))
> 
>  is *much* better-looking.  For extras like error checking, I'd defer
>  them for an additional extended example with more stuff in.  (But in
>  the case of error checking, I'd probably still skip it.)
> 
> -- 
>          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users