Re: Generate function defintions at compile time

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Alex Harsanyi <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> I think Racket is a really good language and can be directly used to write
> useful applications.  Yet new users are encouraged to start using the most
> difficult to understand feature of Racket for their simplest of projects.
>

At the risk of going off topic, I would not consider macros the most
difficult to understand feature of Racket (especially given the competition
from continuations, various concurrency and parallelism constructs,
namespaces and eval, inspectors ...). I found syntax-rules style macros a
fairly easy step from the style of reasoning about evaluation by
substitution of expressions encouraged by HtDP. And syntax-parse makes it
easy to address robustness concerns.


> > `prefix-in` is an old kludge for an old idea that, AFAIK, is no longer
> > considered as good an idea as it used to be.


I don't object to prefix-in sometimes, but I would not recommend writing
modules in the style of parser-tools/lex-sre (which re-defines things like
+) or those documented under
http://docs.racket-lang.org/web-server-internal/dispatchers.html (which
each export a function named make, even though you will almost always want
the make function from more than one such module, making them virtually
unusable without prefix-in or rename-in).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.