Conversation
|
This looks helpful, thanks! I think I'd be inclined to use |
|
Yeah, I intentionally didn't use We could demonstrate how However, I understand your concern that people might see the example, and thought that the imperative use is the way to use parameters. Maybe we can improve the prose above at the beginning of the section to make clear that |
|
My take is that people will skim the prose miss that point and think
imperatively updating parameters is the way to go. Updating the examples to
use parameterize first and then have some examples to demonstrate the guard
and imperatively setting the parameter (with comments explaining the two
gotchas maybe) is the way to go.
Robby
…On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 7:50 AM sorawee ***@***.***> wrote:
Yeah, I intentionally didn't use parameterize here because there are
already a lot of clear examples of parameterize under parameterize.
We could demonstrate how parameterize works here as well, but then I
think it would be weird to have examples in both make-parameter and
parameterize being similar.
However, I understand your concern that people might see the example, and
thought that the imperative use is the way to use parameters. Maybe we can
improve the prose above at the beginning of the section to make clear that
parameterize is preferred?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5052 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADBNMC5FH47ND3FLPAM32TZQDBBBAVCNFSM6AAAAABL7UW2HGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENZRGIYTIMJTGI>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
shhyou
added
the
documentation
shhyou
added
good first issue
pr:needs-work
4 participants
Related to https://racket.discourse.group/t/parameterize-not-working-as-expected-in-8-13/3071