[racket] Style or and/define

I don't have a big problem with the version that uses let.  But my point
isn't really about the code quality, it's about the can of worms being
opened with the specific proposed solution.  I'm open to other solutions.

Also, re: definitions in and, bear in mind that definition macros do all
kinds of crazy things.  Some might expand into multiple forms, including
for-effect expressions.  That's another reason it's dangerous to put
definitions into abnormal contexts that interpret them as anything other
than a sequence of definitions and effects.  You don't want spurious (void)
or (values) or some such to spoil your conditional.

Carl Eastlund

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Laurent <laurent.orseau at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting, I see your point (not yet sure I adhere to it though).
>
> Anyway don't you think there is a readability problem with the mentioned
> code?
>
> Laurent
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I don't like the idea of definitions inside and, at all.  I'll elaborate
>> on why.
>>
>> Internal definitions and for-effect expressions make sense to me when
>> computing a single result value, where the last form in sequence is the
>> result and everything else is just context for that.
>>
>> They do not make sense to me in function arguments and other similar
>> contexts where, normally, each term's value contributes something to the
>> result.  Every expression in a function application has a result that is
>> used.  Every expression in an and form has a result that is used, if
>> evaluation doesn't stop earlier.
>>
>> If we started adding definitions to and, or, &c., then suddenly I have to
>> wonder which terms are used as definitions and which as arguments.  Worse
>> yet, someone some day will want to put in an expression for effect in the
>> middle of an and, and then we'll have some real chaos.
>>
>> I'm all for definitions anywhere they can be clearly seen as not part of
>> the result form.  Let's not put them in between arguments whose results
>> matter, please.
>>
>> Carl Eastlund
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Laurent <laurent.orseau at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> When I see what Robby is forced to write when following the Style:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/plt/racket/commit/09d636c54573522449a6591c805b38f72b6f7da8#L4R963
>>>
>>> I cannot help but think that something is wrong somewhere (it may not be
>>> the Style, and in case it wasn't clear I'm certainly not criticizing
>>> Robby's code).
>>> Using `let' and `and' instead, although being a bit better since it
>>> avoids all the [else #f], is not that big an improvement:
>>>
>>> (define (get-x-spot char-width)
>>>   (and
>>>    char-width
>>>    (let ([dc (get-dc)])
>>>      (and
>>>       dc
>>>       (let ([style (or (send (get-style-list) find-named-style
>>> "Standard")
>>>                        (send (get-style-list) find-named-style
>>> "Basic"))])
>>>         (and
>>>          style
>>>          (let*-values ([(fnt) (send style get-font)]
>>>                        [(xw _1 _2 _3) (send dc get-text-extent "x" fnt)])
>>>            (+ left-padding (* xw char-width)))))))))
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I think here the right thing to do might be to allow for
>>> internal definitions inside `and':
>>>
>>> (define (get-x-spot char-width)
>>>   (and char-width
>>>        (define dc (get-dc))
>>>        dc
>>>        (define style (or (send (get-style-list) find-named-style
>>> "Standard")
>>>                          (send (get-style-list) find-named-style
>>> "Basic")))
>>>        style
>>>        (define fnt (send style get-font))
>>>        (define-values (xw _1 _2 _3) (send dc get-text-extent "x" fnt))
>>>        (+ left-padding (* xw char-width))))
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it *much* more readable? (shorter, avoid rightward drift, less
>>> parens, vertical alignment)
>>>
>>> Since it's not the first time I find the need for such internal
>>> definitions in `and', maybe this is something to consider for future
>>> addition to Racket? Or have some people already identified some problems
>>> with this idea?
>>>
>>> I've played a bit with it if you want to try by your own:
>>> https://gist.github.com/Metaxal/5758394
>>>
>>> (not sure I got it all good with syntax-parse though)
>>>
>>> Laurent
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________
>>>   Racket Users list:
>>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20130611/81007bc0/attachment-0001.html>