Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
2 points by rocketnia 3394 days ago | link | parent

I upvoted you 'cause Semi-Arc's doing what you want it to do (which is what really matters), but I'd like to mention that I actually kinda appreciate the way Arc accepts mismatched destructuring lengths.

I've seen other people's code use a (let (a b c) nil ...) idiom as a shortcut for (with (a nil b nil c nil) ...). As for me, I like being able to design multiple types so that they can be used in an ad-hoc polymorphic way like this:

  arc>
    (def theta (point)
      (let (x y) rep.point
        (errsafe:atan y x)))
  #<procedure: theta>
  arc>
    (let point (annotate 'point3d
                 '(-1 0 200))
      theta.point)
  3.141592653589793
Both these techniques could still be used in an Arc implementation with a stricter treatment of destructuring: The first could be done by defining a 'w/nil macro, and the second could be expressed as (let (x y . rest) rep.point ...). In your favor, the strict treatment makes it easier to write functions that do complain if the length is incorrect, encouraging fail-fast code. However, as far as portability is concerned, the "N args expected" errors are a quirk of Semi-Arc.

I'm going to try out Semi-Arc right now. ^_^ I'm sure I'll have some error reports for you in a moment. Hopefully not too many! :-p