@soegaard2 Yeah I already stumbled upon your code, as I was trying urlang :slightly_smiling_face: I’m not convinced yet about at-exprs… It feels convoluted compared to s-expressions, but it might just be me…

is there something like rtags for racket in vim?

(or ctags)

@macocio I’ve got a .ctags file that’s been working OK for me.

@macocio yeah. I use ctags with --langmap=Scheme:+.rkt --languages=Ruby,Lisp,YACC,C,C++,Scheme (and a bunch of other stuff, all wrapped up in a script called retag)

seems i missed a bunch of discussion re: lang pure

re: hofs, my impression was to not worry if the user decides to do something impure

my feeling is that the value is that you can reason about your code inside of pure as pure code; if the effectful code that uses your code does something wrong, not your fault

@zenspider oh neat. I do wish there was an AST-level matcher though, since macros can obfuscate definitions. rtags is really awesome for C and C++

i dont think purity is such a hard concept that its much to expect people to understand it

@joelmccracken these are my thoughts as well, it does not matter if you happen to provide a function that is impure to run inside pure, if that fn comes from outside

or at least - it doesnt matter in a simple basic #lang pure, ofc it matters in other contexts

not saying it totally doesn’t matter, just that it seems like its possible that could be a good cost/benefit payoff

@zenspider any way of getting ctags to work on (require FILE)? Would be nice to jump into it

I’m not sure that makes sense for ctags. racket-mode can handle that and more tho.