On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Clark Grubb wrote:
> This seems to be a bug. Here is the
> Racket behavior and Haskell behavior
> for comparison.
>
> ==
>
> $ racket
> Welcome to Racket v5.1.1.
>> (foldl - 0 '(1 2 3))
John's stepper should show this:
== (fold - (- 1 0) '(2
On Jul 9, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Clark Grubb wrote:
> This seems to be a bug. Here is the
> Racket behavior and Haskell behavior
> for comparison.
I believe what you're actually observing here is a difference in the order in
which arguments are presented to the given function. E.G., try "cons".
Jo
This seems to be a bug. Here is the
Racket behavior and Haskell behavior
for comparison.
==
$ racket
Welcome to Racket v5.1.1.
> (foldl - 0 '(1 2 3))
2
> (foldr - 0 '(1 2 3))
2
==
$ ghci
GHCi, version 6.10.4: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Prel
At Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:43:14 -0700, John Clements wrote:
> The expansion of letrec has changed substantially; for instance, a letrec
> such
> as
>
> (letrec ([a 3] [b (lambda () (b))] [c 4]) (+ a (b) c))
>
> ... now expands into three nested forms. This is going to require some fairly
> intere
When I use 'print' on a syntax object, I get a nice turn-down arrow that allows
me to browse the subterms, and see the properties associated with them.
However, I notice that certain subterms are "opaque", in the sense that I can't
click inside them; any click anywhere within them highlights th
The expansion of letrec has changed substantially; for instance, a letrec such
as
(letrec ([a 3] [b (lambda () (b))] [c 4]) (+ a (b) c))
... now expands into three nested forms. This is going to require some fairly
interesting changes to the stepper. First, though, some questions:
1) are the
At Sat, 9 Jul 2011 01:59:31 -0400, Guillaume Marceau wrote:
> > * Expanding `expr' to `expression' means that the grammar tables don't
> > fit in the available width. (Is `expr' as an abbreviation confusing
> > to students?)
>
> In general, yes, abbreviations are a big speed bump for students
7 matches
Mail list logo
