Four minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> I think Eli is saying that it would create a "bad" dependency where
Yes, the "redundant" was a bad translation of something like "a
dependency we don't really need".
> "badness" isn't something that is easy to say precisely what it is,
> but the rough ide
I think Eli is saying that it would create a "bad" dependency where
"badness" isn't something that is easy to say precisely what it is,
but the rough idea is that there is a hierarchy of modules (ie a
grouping of modules into levels of a tree) and dependencies should go
one direction. Making drrack
On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Yes, please do separate the stepper tests out into another file.
Got it, done.
John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://l
Yes, please do separate the stepper tests out into another file.
Robby
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> An hour and a half ago, John Clements wrote:
>> In certain places, I know that we're trying to be careful to
>> minimize 'require's that occur as part of DrRacket startup
On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> An hour and a half ago, John Clements wrote:
>> In certain places, I know that we're trying to be careful to
>> minimize 'require's that occur as part of DrRacket startup. Is
>> 'rackunit' something we're trying to avoid? Specifically, I have o
An hour and a half ago, John Clements wrote:
> In certain places, I know that we're trying to be careful to
> minimize 'require's that occur as part of DrRacket startup. Is
> 'rackunit' something we're trying to avoid? Specifically, I have old
> unit tests in collects/stepper/private/shared.rkt th
In certain places, I know that we're trying to be careful to minimize
'require's that occur as part of DrRacket startup. Is 'rackunit' something
we're trying to avoid? Specifically, I have old unit tests in
collects/stepper/private/shared.rkt that I'd like to revive as rackunit tests.
John
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:47 AM, John Clements
wrote:
> I'm confused by the documentation for Planet's "install-pkg" function. First,
> it appears to me that this is what I'd use to simulate "raco planet
> fileinject"--is that correct?
Yes, I believe so.
> (I'm on a windows system, and I'm not
I'm confused by the documentation for Planet's "install-pkg" function. First,
it appears to me that this is what I'd use to simulate "raco planet
fileinject"--is that correct? (I'm on a windows system, and I'm not sure how to
get a command-line)
Second, the package-spec that I construct has
8 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I am too buried in syntax-certificate work at the moment to follow
> along reply properly, but for what it's worth, I have a very
> different proposal in mind: a single file can have multiple loadable
> things (maybe "modulets"), and a program `main' should be
Three minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> > 2. BTW, `-um- foo.rkt' would *not* be the same as `-R foo.rkt main',
> > because `-m' is disconnected from a specific module. That makes it
> > still have some use as a more generic th
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> 2. BTW, `-um- foo.rkt' would *not* be the same as `-R foo.rkt main',
> because `-m' is disconnected from a specific module. That makes it
> still have some use as a more generic thing, but you pay for that
> with the verbosity of an e
I am too buried in syntax-certificate work at the moment to follow
along reply properly, but for what it's worth, I have a very different
proposal in mind: a single file can have multiple loadable things
(maybe "modulets"), and a program `main' should be one of those
loadable things --- not an expo
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Hanchrow
Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Racket startup
To: Eli Barzilay
+100
I too go through the same dance as you.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> So this is my revised suggestion for th
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> An hour ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> > Three minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Racketish name would be #%main, wouldn't it?
>> >
>> > Yes. But the problem is that `#%f
Jay McCarthy wrote at 06/28/2011 10:52 AM:
My patch was supposed to address this by setting up a protocol for
code to be test only or "not" test (that's what I intended by
with-deploying.)
It was "deploying" in the name that I thought was problematic.
"when-testing-mode" and "unless-testing
An hour ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > Three minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> >>
> >> The Racketish name would be #%main, wouldn't it?
> >
> > Yes. But the problem is that `#%foo' names are intended to be
> > things that you don't write in
On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 10 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
>>> Regardless of this, you're missing the main problem. If you're in
>>> drracket (or in a racket repl), you won't get to `set-car!', unless
10 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > Regardless of this, you're missing the main problem. If you're in
> > drracket (or in a racket repl), you won't get to `set-car!', unless
> > you explicitly search everything. But the problem i
20 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> I was worried about situations where you had some code that had
> module toplevel code that starts up a long running process that
> shouldn't be run in test mode, so I wanted to cordon off that. I
> wasn't imagining anything as complicated as what Neil or Eli s
Apologies. I didn't understand your original message then, and all I understand
now is that I misunderstood it.
But I will say that I already organize my files according to Eli's style. I
have considered writing tests right below a function, but in the end I decided
that this wasn't any good
On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Regardless of this, you're missing the main problem. If you're in
> drracket (or in a racket repl), you won't get to `set-car!', unless
> you explicitly search everything. But the problem is when the neabies
> just points their browsers to doc
On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> I do see a point in such a feature -- for example, IIUC, Matthew's
> recent optimization to loading phase-1 code could be expressed inside
> the language by making all `for-syntax' requires default to lazy
> loading mode. But I doubt that su
2011/6/28 Matthias Felleisen :
>
>
> I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests included,
> as an exportable test suite:
>
> -- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
> -- they are next to the function they test
> -- it is easy to run them from the repl after l
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Three minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>>
>> The Racketish name would be #%main, wouldn't it?
>
> Yes. But the problem is that `#%foo' names are intended to be things
> that you don't write in end-user code, only if you implement a new
> la
8 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
> > This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
>
> As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a
> slippery slope to a proliferation of all-uppercase variable names...
> (B
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
>>
>> This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
>
> As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a slippery
> slope to a proliferation of all-uppercase v
Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/28/2011 09:52 AM:
This makes `MAIN' the Racket equivalent of Python's `__main__' thing.
As for the name, if you could promise me that this name isn't a slippery
slope to a proliferation of all-uppercase variable names... (By
convention, I use all-uppercase for patter
Four minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> >> (2) things from libraries can be excluded from specific languages
> >> because we know they won't run
> >
> > That won't work right too... Should I list a whole bunch of
> > modules for m
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
>>> (2) things from libraries can be excluded from specific languages
>>> because we know they won't run
>>
>> That won't work right too... Should I list a whole bunch of modules
About a minute ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests
> included, as an exportable test suite:
>
> -- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
> -- they are next to the function they test
> -- it is easy to run them from th
On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> (2) things from libraries can be excluded from specific languages
>> because we know they won't run
>
> That won't work right too... Should I list a whole bunch of modules
> for my language? What happens when one of these modules becomes
I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests included,
as an exportable test suite:
-- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
-- they are next to the function they test
-- it is easy to run them from the repl after loading the file
-- ... and from some 'te
6 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > "I feel lucky" thing is not going to be a useful feature.
> > It can work nicely in cases where bindings are relatively unique (for
> > example, `get-impure-port'), but getting it to do the right t
So this is my revised suggestion for the startup thing. It's intended
to resolve a few issues that bothered me for a while, and some new
ones that were mentioned recently -- Jay's testing thing as well as
the need for some way to write code that is run only when a file is
executed directly. I thi
On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> "I feel lucky" thing is not going to be a useful feature.
> It can work nicely in cases where bindings are relatively unique (for
> example, `get-impure-port'), but getting it to do the right thing for
> common names (like `cons') will be challen
25 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>
> Just one example: just like some people might have mode called
> "deploying" or "production", I might have particular modules that
> have a run mode in which there are multiple implementations of the
> same function, and at run time both the simple and the
I like the "testing" part, but am uneasy with the "deploying" part.
Unit testing is so commonplace, and sometimes you want to have unit
tests of private stuff within a module, without having to break up the
module to expose the private stuff for testing. So, in that very
common, almost univer
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>
> It also adds "raco test" which runs a file in testing mode. You can
> optionally add the "--all" option so that all dynamically required
> modules are run in testing mode as well. There could also be a testing
> button in DrRacket, but I did
On Saturday, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> [I certainly have a things to say about this, but I'm running out now,
> and will probably have flaky connection throughout the weekend, so I'm
> not sure I'll be able to post something useful until tomorrow.]
[Apologies for the delay.]
There are two main proble
40 matches
Mail list logo
