Re: Goo Nitpicks

[Jonathan Hseu <vomjom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 05:27:13PM -0400, Jonathan Bachrach wrote:
> 
> > This would replace the current mod:name system (because of possible
> > name clashing).
> 
> how would this replace it and what name clashes are you referring to?

Nevermind.  I was just thinking:
(use foo/bar/baz/math goo/math)

might make it so you couldn't use goo/math... but if the programmer
wanted to, they could also add:
(use goo/math asdf)

So I guess it isn't a problem.

> > 6. Why is DS like: (ds (macro ,blah ,@asdf)) and not like:
> > (ds macro (,blah ,@asdf))?
> > 
> > It seems inconsistent with DF and DM.
> 
> i see your point.  i was trying to make it somewhat wysiwyg but then i
> could have done the same with DF's looking more like calls (as is done
> in scheme with define).

Well, I'm happy with having all functions changed to Scheme style
definitions too.

> 
> > 8. Some destructive functions don't have a !, such as set.
> 
> having set not have a ! was intentional.  wanted it to be short.
> 
> what other functions do you have in mind?

(dv), (def)
It's not a huge issue.

> > 11. According to wiki, default values will look like:
> > (dm function (a:0|<int> b:1|<int>))
> > 
> > It may be just me, but I think default values should be consistent with
> > rep's and let's variable assignments.
> > 
> > So, maybe make default values look like:
> > (dm function ((a 0)|<int> (b 0)|<int>))
> > 
> > Or change let/rep to look like:
> > (let (x:0 y:3))
> 
> nice.

I'm wondering, would the let example interfere with modules at all?
(let (x:math:$pi)) looks somewhat difficult to read for those new to the
language.

-- 
Jonathan Hseu <vomjom@vomjom.org, vomjom@debian.org, jh4@cec.wustl.edu>
GPG ID:          5228D713
GPG fingerprint: 220B A4EF 70FE B884 CB38  F93F EA8A 1024 5228 D713