Why does DrRacket IDE considers some identifiers as “symbols” and some as “keywords”? What is the difference?
Why does DrRacket (kind of Scheme) IDE highlights some of the identifiers as “keywords” (for example define
, lambda
, send*
), and the others as “symbols” (user defined identifiers, +
, -
, abs
, send
, send+
, etc.)?
Why does DrRacket IDE considers some identifiers as “symbols” and some as “keywords”? What is the difference?
Why does DrRacket (kind of Scheme) IDE highlights some of the identifiers as “keywords” (for example define
, lambda
, send*
), and the others as “symbols” (user defined identifiers, +
, -
, abs
, send
, send+
, etc.)?
Why does DrRacket IDE considers some identifiers as “symbols” and some as “keywords”? What is the difference?
Why does DrRacket (kind of Scheme) IDE highlights some of the identifiers as “keywords” (for example define
, lambda
, send*
), and the others as “symbols” (user defined identifiers, +
, -
, abs
, send
, send+
, etc.)?
Why does DrRacket IDE considers some identifiers as “symbols” and some as “keywords”? What is the difference?
Why does DrRacket (kind of Scheme) IDE highlights some of the identifiers as “keywords” (for example define
, lambda
, send*
), and the others as “symbols” (user defined identifiers, +
, -
, abs
, send
, send+
, etc.)?
What features does MIT-Scheme have that make it ideal for SICP?
I’ve been thinking about trying to get through the SICP again, this time well-armed with a better idea of what the SICP is meant to accomplish, and being older and wiser than my first attempt back in university. I’ve been told by old hands that the MIT Scheme is the only scheme I should think about using, and that other schemes lack features that make the SICP harder to accomplish. “There’s a reason all the ‘SICP-in-X’ end with chapter 3. Other languages can’t support what’s in chapter 4.”
What features does MIT-Scheme have that make it ideal for SICP?
I’ve been thinking about trying to get through the SICP again, this time well-armed with a better idea of what the SICP is meant to accomplish, and being older and wiser than my first attempt back in university. I’ve been told by old hands that the MIT Scheme is the only scheme I should think about using, and that other schemes lack features that make the SICP harder to accomplish. “There’s a reason all the ‘SICP-in-X’ end with chapter 3. Other languages can’t support what’s in chapter 4.”
What features does MIT-Scheme have that make it ideal for SICP?
I’ve been thinking about trying to get through the SICP again, this time well-armed with a better idea of what the SICP is meant to accomplish, and being older and wiser than my first attempt back in university. I’ve been told by old hands that the MIT Scheme is the only scheme I should think about using, and that other schemes lack features that make the SICP harder to accomplish. “There’s a reason all the ‘SICP-in-X’ end with chapter 3. Other languages can’t support what’s in chapter 4.”
Designing XML – confused between attributes and elements [closed]
Closed 10 years ago.
Designing XML – confused between attributes and elements [closed]
Closed 10 years ago.
Designing XML – confused between attributes and elements [closed]
Closed 10 years ago.