4 ms·

>Assume that `s:l`, `s:s` and `s:r` are provided from another module that you have only in a compiled form at the moment Why are you being so deliberately dish

>Assume that `s:l`, `s:s` and `s:r` are provided from another module that you have only in a compiled form at the moment Why are you being so deliberately dishonest, and expecting a response like "oh, your strawman has totally convinced me to write shitty code, thank you so much first year CS student!"? The entire point is that x and xs are not defined elsewhere, they are defined by you, and used on a single line.

klibertp 14y ago
"Why are you being so deliberately dishonest" I'm not - that's how they are defined in Racket. "and expecting a response like" Why do you assume so? I'm really curious what is the difference in the readability to someone who doesn't know the syntax. "first year CS student" Ok, so I had enough: you're just a stupid troll. Not only you can't back your claims with arguments but now you're (for the third time, no less) using ad hominem "argument"; it's useless talking to you since you're too stupid to formulate sensible response and you're too bad a programmer to even have a chance of knowing something interesting. "and used on a single line" Oh, on a single line? That's fine then...
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >I'm not - that's how they are defined in Racket. You are. The argument is that you should be using single letter variables for small scope, simple variables. Like the classics: for (i = 0; i < whatever; i++) { myarray[i] = something(); } and myfunction x:xs = dothing x + myfunction xs When you decide to deliberately misrepresent that argument as "use single letter variables across modules" that is dishonest. >Oh, on a single line? That's fine then... Yes, of course it is.
  - klibertp 14y ago
    I'm still waiting for your argument as to why is one-letter name better than three-letters one. What is the difference, what makes it so much harder to understand the name with two additional letters? With a link to the source please.

klibertp 14y ago

"Why are you being so deliberately dishonest" I'm not - that's how they are defined in Racket. "and expecting a response like" Why do you assume so? I'm really curious what is the difference in the readability to someone who doesn't know the syntax. "first year CS student" Ok, so I had enough: you're just a stupid troll. Not only you can't back your claims with arguments but now you're (for the third time, no less) using ad hominem "argument"; it's useless talking to you since you're too stupid to formulate sensible response and you're too bad a programmer to even have a chance of knowing something interesting. "and used on a single line" Oh, on a single line? That's fine then...

papsosouid 14y ago
>I'm not - that's how they are defined in Racket. You are. The argument is that you should be using single letter variables for small scope, simple variables. Like the classics: for (i = 0; i < whatever; i++) { myarray[i] = something(); } and myfunction x:xs = dothing x + myfunction xs When you decide to deliberately misrepresent that argument as "use single letter variables across modules" that is dishonest. >Oh, on a single line? That's fine then... Yes, of course it is.
- klibertp 14y ago
  I'm still waiting for your argument as to why is one-letter name better than three-letters one. What is the difference, what makes it so much harder to understand the name with two additional letters? With a link to the source please.