Re: dot meaning
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen (hanche_at_math.ntnu.no)
Date: 12/04/04
- Previous message: Harald Hanche-Olsen: "Re: using function names as variable names? Is it Justified?"
- In reply to: Duane Rettig: "Re: dot meaning"
- Next in thread: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: dot meaning"
- Reply: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: dot meaning"
- Reply: Duane Rettig: "Re: dot meaning"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 04 Dec 2004 13:34:06 +0100
+ Duane Rettig <duane@franz.com>:
| Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@math.ntnu.no> writes:
|
| > + Duane Rettig <duane@franz.com>:
| >
| > | Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@math.ntnu.no> writes:
| > |
| > Now, I teach mathematics, not computer science - so it may well be
| > that my intuitions about what will confuse newbies are off the mark.
|
| As a mathematics teacher, how much Greek do you teach your students
| before you dive into concepts using their letters?
None at all.
| > | The phrase "the symbol 'foo" as used above is unambiguous and
| > | should present no problem to readers, since the form (quote foo)
| > | is obviously not a symbol unless evaluated.
| >
| > Absolutely. At least, among experienced Lisp users, it is so.
|
| It was not a problem to me when I was an inexperienced Lisp user,
| either.
Lucky you. Actually, I cannot remember if this was a problem to me.
What I do remember is that I suffered lots of confusion and
misconceptions in the beginning. In particular, I used to worry a lot
(needlessly, as I later found out) about whether or not stuff got
evaluated when I wanted it to.
| > | Evaluation times are always confusing. My belief is that it is
| > | better to be exposed to as many of these styles as possible, for
| > | practice, in order to understand the power of eval and quote -
| >
| > All in good time, yes. But surely not at the very beginning of the
| > learning process?
|
| Not necessarily how to distinguish, but at least the (correct)
| terminology shouldn't be called to question - that is definitely
| a way to confuse a newbie with detail he is not ready to handle.
On the one hand, I still don't see "the symbol 'foo" as /correct/. To
me, it is the sort of (strictly speaking) incorrect language which
experienced people use for the sake of brevity, but can be confusing
to beginners. (But still it grates on my nerves in the same way
incorrect grammar does - it distracts from the real content of the
text, and so is better avoided.)
On the other hand, it is true that we probably confuse the newbie with
this sort of discussion. But that's usenet for you - there is no
private room where we can withdraw and discuss the finer points of
pedagogy without confusing the students.
(And on the gripping hand, it is probably pointless to go on and on
discussing this point, so I'll stop here.)
| And as I recall, you didn't just call it into question; you labelled
| it as wrong.
Maybe I came on too strong, but I think it is better to state opinions
clearly than to be wishy-washy. This way, the issues get out where
they can be examined and viewpoints revised. I have learned something
from our discussion, not about Lisp but about how to talk about Lisp,
which is also important.
-- * Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/> - Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
- Previous message: Harald Hanche-Olsen: "Re: using function names as variable names? Is it Justified?"
- In reply to: Duane Rettig: "Re: dot meaning"
- Next in thread: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: dot meaning"
- Reply: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: dot meaning"
- Reply: Duane Rettig: "Re: dot meaning"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|