Re: [racket-users] Change how to print builtins
For myself, I would like some better pretty-printing of nested data structures and for structs to have their field names included with the values so that they printed in a more hash-like format. On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Sam Waxman wrote: > Hello, > > I was having trouble figuring out how to get racket to print values > however I wanted. In particular, I was hoping to make exact nums print as > decimals and true print as true (and not #t or #true). It would also be > nice if I could custom print procedures so that + printed as plain old + or > in some other yet-to-be-decided format. There might be other minor cosmetic > things I'd like to do in the future, so if there's a general way to write > my own printer, that would be preferred, but if there are builtin features > just to do the first two specific things, that would be pretty helpful too. > > (I have to imagine there are pretty good ways to do this considering > user-defined #langs could print out all sorts of things, and they're not > just wrapping all their values in structs with custom print settings are > they?) > > Many thanks in advance > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[racket-users] GLPK: how many chickens to invite to your picnic?
Doing some operations research in Racket? Frustrated by the lack of linear programming libraries? Well, be frustrated no more! Actually, this is just a package announcement: I built a nice clean one-function interface to GLPK, the Gnu Linear Programming Kit, allowing primal simplex to do optimization on linear functions subject to linear constraints on variables with arbitrary bounds. Hope it’s useful! John Clements -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-users] GLPK: how many chickens to invite to your picnic?
> On Jun 23, 2017, at 10:25, Robby Findler wrote: > > Docs link with examples? :) But of course! http://docs.racket-lang.org/glpk/index.html John > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:13 PM 'John Clements' via users-redirect > wrote: > Doing some operations research in Racket? Frustrated by the lack of linear > programming libraries? Well, be frustrated no more! > > Actually, this is just a package announcement: I built a nice clean > one-function interface to GLPK, the Gnu Linear Programming Kit, allowing > primal simplex to do optimization on linear functions subject to linear > constraints on variables with arbitrary bounds. Hope it’s useful! > > John Clements > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[racket-users] Re: GLPK: how many chickens to invite to your picnic?
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:13:36 AM UTC-7, 'John Clements' via users-redirect wrote: > Doing some operations research in Racket? Frustrated by the lack of linear > programming libraries? Well, be frustrated no more! > > Actually, this is just a package announcement: I built a nice clean > one-function interface to GLPK, the Gnu Linear Programming Kit, allowing > primal simplex to do optimization on linear functions subject to linear > constraints on variables with arbitrary bounds. Hope it’s useful! > > John Clements Hooray! Thanks for the package! The docs are great for teaching linear programming too; I haven't done that since a college class years ago and appreciate the refresher. Pot-stirring question: do you think it would make more sense to name the collection `math/glpk` instead of just `glpk`? I don't have a preference, just idly wondering. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
package naming (Was: [racket-users] Re: GLPK: how many chickens to invite to your picnic?)
Jack Firth wrote on 06/23/2017 04:47 PM: Pot-stirring question: do you think it would make more sense to name the collection `math/glpk` instead of just `glpk`? You're exactly right, it's a controversial question. :) In general, for a flexible, decentralized ecology of third-party packages, I think one usually wants either a flat namespace of package names, or (like PLaneT or Java) a namespace that's qualified by the package's origin. (Qualified by one of the developer's identities, and whatever additional qualification the developer chooses to add. In the case of Java, from the very start, they elegantly outsourced the namespace qualification authority to the Internet domain name registrations [*], but PlaneT's simple method was also reasonablee.) One mitigating factor, in this particular case, is that the author is a core Racket person, and there's an ancient legacy in core Racket, of sometimes using hierarchical package names for purely topical taxonomy purposes. IMHO, this is suboptimal, but it's ancient precedent, so I wouldn't try debating it if core Racket continued to do this. Just know that, every time I gaze upon a new hierarchical package name used for purely topical taxonomy purposes, a single tear rolls down my somber face. [*] Java used the domain name registration system only to the extent that, if you owned a domain name, you were socially considered to have authority to name packages qualified with that name and subdomains. They didn't use DNS itself at all, although you could imagine how DNS *could* later be used to implement package signature authentication in a distributed way, atop existing DNS infrastructure. (Not that I'm advocating using DNS that way for Racket -- there some other ways of implementing authentication that make more pragmatic sense, given where we are. And I'm not going to argue for Java-like use of domain registration authority in Racket, at least not unless it's part of implementing a trust system for packages.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: package naming (Was: [racket-users] Re: GLPK: how many chickens to invite to your picnic?)
On this subject: I have some code that I've been meaning to post for quite a while, but I have held off because it's currently in the 'dstorrs' namespace and the package docs request that you not name a package after the developer. I can rename it easily enough but I don't want to change all the production code that's using it and I don't want to maintain two separate copies of it. Once I get the tuits I'll rename it and post it but I've been putting it off. What is the objection to naming a package for its author? Is it simply that the author's name is not descriptive of the functionality? On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Jack Firth wrote on 06/23/2017 04:47 PM: > >> Pot-stirring question: do you think it would make more sense to name the >> collection `math/glpk` instead of just `glpk`? >> > > You're exactly right, it's a controversial question. :) > > In general, for a flexible, decentralized ecology of third-party packages, > I think one usually wants either a flat namespace of package names, or > (like PLaneT or Java) a namespace that's qualified by the package's > origin. (Qualified by one of the developer's identities, and whatever > additional qualification the developer chooses to add. In the case of > Java, from the very start, they elegantly outsourced the namespace > qualification authority to the Internet domain name registrations [*], but > PlaneT's simple method was also reasonablee.) > > One mitigating factor, in this particular case, is that the author is a > core Racket person, and there's an ancient legacy in core Racket, of > sometimes using hierarchical package names for purely topical taxonomy > purposes. IMHO, this is suboptimal, but it's ancient precedent, so I > wouldn't try debating it if core Racket continued to do this. > > Just know that, every time I gaze upon a new hierarchical package name > used for purely topical taxonomy purposes, a single tear rolls down my > somber face. > > [*] Java used the domain name registration system only to the extent that, > if you owned a domain name, you were socially considered to have authority > to name packages qualified with that name and subdomains. They didn't use > DNS itself at all, although you could imagine how DNS *could* later be used > to implement package signature authentication in a distributed way, atop > existing DNS infrastructure. (Not that I'm advocating using DNS that way > for Racket -- there some other ways of implementing authentication that > make more pragmatic sense, given where we are. And I'm not going to argue > for Java-like use of domain registration authority in Racket, at least not > unless it's part of implementing a trust system for packages.) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: package naming (Was: [racket-users] Re: GLPK: how many chickens to invite to your picnic?)
I already screwed up my uploaded package by using a plural and then later read that the style guide suggests singulars. Embarrassing. On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Jack Firth wrote on 06/23/2017 04:47 PM: > >> Pot-stirring question: do you think it would make more sense to name the >> collection `math/glpk` instead of just `glpk`? >> > > You're exactly right, it's a controversial question. :) > > In general, for a flexible, decentralized ecology of third-party packages, > I think one usually wants either a flat namespace of package names, or > (like PLaneT or Java) a namespace that's qualified by the package's > origin. (Qualified by one of the developer's identities, and whatever > additional qualification the developer chooses to add. In the case of > Java, from the very start, they elegantly outsourced the namespace > qualification authority to the Internet domain name registrations [*], but > PlaneT's simple method was also reasonablee.) > > One mitigating factor, in this particular case, is that the author is a > core Racket person, and there's an ancient legacy in core Racket, of > sometimes using hierarchical package names for purely topical taxonomy > purposes. IMHO, this is suboptimal, but it's ancient precedent, so I > wouldn't try debating it if core Racket continued to do this. > > Just know that, every time I gaze upon a new hierarchical package name > used for purely topical taxonomy purposes, a single tear rolls down my > somber face. > > [*] Java used the domain name registration system only to the extent that, > if you owned a domain name, you were socially considered to have authority > to name packages qualified with that name and subdomains. They didn't use > DNS itself at all, although you could imagine how DNS *could* later be used > to implement package signature authentication in a distributed way, atop > existing DNS infrastructure. (Not that I'm advocating using DNS that way > for Racket -- there some other ways of implementing authentication that > make more pragmatic sense, given where we are. And I'm not going to argue > for Java-like use of domain registration authority in Racket, at least not > unless it's part of implementing a trust system for packages.) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: package naming (Was: [racket-users] Re: GLPK: how many chickens to invite to your picnic?)
Deren Dohoda wrote on 06/23/2017 06:52 PM: I already screwed up my uploaded package by using a plural and then later read that the style guide suggests singulars. Conscientiousness in a community is admirable. But my opinion is to not worry too much about that particular perceived faux pas. :) The Racket style guides/guidelines I've seen are relatively recent inventions, and I believe they're oriented more towards contributions to core Racket. There's a lot of diverse thinking within the broad Racket community, on a whole lot of Racket topics, since long before the guidelines I've seen, and it's ongoing. People can say (and I certainly do!) "I think it's generally best if people do X", and also "I personally prefer to do X" or "my project/company does X", but (outside of core Racket itself) there's not a lot of "all Racket users have to do X".[*] Also, if you look at the history of Scheme and then Racket, there's a lot of individualist thinking, and some good things have happened because people were able to say "I'm doing X", and the languages and communities usually said "cool" or "whatever", not put up barriers. I suspect everyone wants to see more good stuff in the default package catalog, more than they want to force any particular style dogma on everyone. [*] My gosh, you can make unhygienic syntax transformers, and use `eval` with wild abandon! I've even seen people put close-parentheses characters on their own lines! :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
