[racket-dev] Release for v5.3 is about to begin
The release process for v5.3 will begin in about a week. If you have any new features that you want in and are relatively close to being done, now is a good time to do that. -- Ryan Culpepper _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v5.3 is about to begin
On Monday, April 2, 2012, Ryan Culpepper wrote: The release process for v5.3 will begin in about a week. If you have any new features that you want in and are relatively close to being done, now is a good time to do that. Is submodule support going to be a part of 5.3? _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] confusing doc for in-directory
I pushed a doc update, but forgot to reply. The documentation now clarifies that `in-directory' recursively traverses subdirectories, and it suggests `directory-list' for just the immediate content of a directory. At Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:21:57 -0700, Eric Hanchrow wrote: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/sequences.html?q=read-directory#(def._((li b._racket/private/base..rkt)._in-directory)) says that the form will ``Return a sequence that produces all of the paths for files, directories, and links with dir. '' That's ungrammatical, but worse, it gave me no clue that it will return all files _at any depth_, similar to the Unix comand find dir. I'd expected it to return only immediate children of dir, similarly to find dir -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1; I was surprised when (in-directory /tmp) complained about not being able to open /tmp/some-subdirectory/ due to permissions problems. _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
[racket-dev] provide specs in eopl in repository use (all-defined-out) instead of (all-defined)
How come when building Racket from the latest source of the repository (at least as of 3 days ago), #lang eopl doesn't recognize (all-defined) as a valid provide spec and wants (all-defined-out) instead? --- nadeem _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] provide specs in eopl in repository use (all-defined-out) instead of (all-defined)
Because it was changed to be based on #lang racket instead of the (old) #lang mzscheme not too long ago. I think there was a post here (or on the users's list) about this, but I'm not sure that this particular point was mentioned there, so I can see how you'd be surprised. Is this causing you trouble with classes or similar? Would a #lang eopl/mzscheme or something like that be useful for backwards compatibility? (You'd still need to use that #lang line, tho, since the regular eopl language is now changed for good.) Robby On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Nadeem Abdul Hamid nad...@acm.org wrote: How come when building Racket from the latest source of the repository (at least as of 3 days ago), #lang eopl doesn't recognize (all-defined) as a valid provide spec and wants (all-defined-out) instead? --- nadeem _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] provide specs in eopl in repository use (all-defined-out) instead of (all-defined)
OK, thanks. Just wanted to make sure something wasn't broken. It's only a minor inconvenience - my students are using the version from the download page, while I usually use one built from source, but I've just been using the regular 5.2.1 version to run their programs. In any event, perhaps the documentation needs to be updated: the entry: http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/eopl/index.html#(form._((lib._eopl/eopl..rkt)._provide)) points to the mzscheme version of provide. --- nadeem On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote: Because it was changed to be based on #lang racket instead of the (old) #lang mzscheme not too long ago. I think there was a post here (or on the users's list) about this, but I'm not sure that this particular point was mentioned there, so I can see how you'd be surprised. Is this causing you trouble with classes or similar? Would a #lang eopl/mzscheme or something like that be useful for backwards compatibility? (You'd still need to use that #lang line, tho, since the regular eopl language is now changed for good.) Robby On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Nadeem Abdul Hamid nad...@acm.org wrote: How come when building Racket from the latest source of the repository (at least as of 3 days ago), #lang eopl doesn't recognize (all-defined) as a valid provide spec and wants (all-defined-out) instead? --- nadeem _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
