On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 at 12:34:59 UTC+11 Robby Findler wrote: I'm no expert on algebras, but I think the way to work on this is not to > think "what Racket constructs are close that I might coopt to express what > I want?" but instead to think "what do I want my programs to look like" and > then design the language from there, reusing libraries as they seem helpful > or designing new ones that do what you want. Racket's > language-implementation facilities are pretty powerful (of course, if there > is nothing like what you end up needing, there will still be actual > programming to do ;). >
Thanks Robby -- that's a very interesting way to look at library design that seems to make particular sense in the Racket environment. Stu -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/b56bd80d-dbc3-4bda-9aa2-07e2545a9ca7n%40googlegroups.com.
