3 ms·
"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 real
by 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 agoI'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.