I don't know if you folks have already seen this, but for any of you
considering or using OS X 10.7, the Ars Technica review appears to contain some
fairly detailed developer information. I'm only on the second page, but table
of contents entries such as "Automatic Reference Counting vs. Garbag
John Clements wrote at 08/06/2011 06:29 AM:
[...] table of contents entries such as "Automatic Reference Counting vs. Garbage
Collection" look ... interesting. [...]
Might be helpful to exchange notes with CL implementors on any wins that
can be had with any new Apple OS X features.
OS X is
In a fairly user-focused review I saw, the 'automatic snapshots' sounded great.
Apparently an app that subscribes to some Lion protocol gets automatic
snapshots so that you can say 'I don't like what I did in the last 10 mins,
let's go back' It also saves automatically when you forget. Good for
On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> In a fairly user-focused review I saw, the 'automatic snapshots' sounded
> great. Apparently an app that subscribes to some Lion protocol gets automatic
> snapshots so that you can say 'I don't like what I did in the last 10 mins,
> l
1. I like Robby's mode suggestion.
2. I prefer shorter keywords, e.g., define-judgment.
3. Why is this in github and not in the docs?
On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:56 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> How about
>
> #:mode (sum I I O)
>
> for the mode spec where the #:mode keyword is optional but, if p
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 3. Why is this in github and not in the docs?
I think you're mistaken here. It is in the head on our git servers.
Robby
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lan
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> 1. I like Robby's mode suggestion.
> 2. I prefer shorter keywords, e.g., define-judgment.
I'm having trouble reconciling these comments. Robby's suggestion, if
I understand it correctly, is to overload the `define-relation' name
inste
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Casey Klein
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>>
>> 1. I like Robby's mode suggestion.
>> 2. I prefer shorter keywords, e.g., define-judgment.
>
> I'm having trouble reconciling these comments. Robby's suggestion, if
> I understa
On 2011-08-05 12:13 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> So I wonder if anyone has a positive experience with this kind of
> searching in an "in anger" kind of setting?
Not with search by type, but at the risk of derailing the thread, I have
had quite a few positive experiences with search by example.
For
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Casey Klein
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. I like Robby's mode suggestion.
>>> 2. I prefer shorter keywords, e.g., define-judgment.
>>
>> I'm having troubl
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> So I wonder if anyone has a
> positive experience with this kind of searching in an "in anger" kind
> of setting?
>
I've had positive experiences searching by type signature in Hoogle.
I've wished I could do the same for the Racket docs eve
[Oops - forgot to reply to all.]
To build a sketch of this, I've found module->exports, dynamic-require
and friends, but I think I'd need procedures along the lines of
function-contract? : any -> boolean
function-contract-domain-contracts : function-contract? ->
(listof contract?)
f
I like it.
Robby
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Casey Klein
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Casey Klein
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>>> wrote:
1. I like Robby's mode suggestion.
There isn't a way to do that, no.
But I think in Racket we have better ways of avoiding such danger
(namely using the sandbox library or the pieces it builds upon). In
general, in fact, you'd have to do that anyways, since a contract can
be some arbitrary predicate (and don't forget do-dads like #
On 2011-08-06 4:41 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> But I think in Racket we have better ways of avoiding such danger
> (namely using the sandbox library or the pieces it builds upon). In
> general, in fact, you'd have to do that anyways, since a contract can
> be some arbitrary predicate (and don't forg
Three hours ago, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> On 2011-08-06 4:41 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> > But I think in Racket we have better ways of avoiding such danger
> > (namely using the sandbox library or the pieces it builds
> > upon). In general, in fact, you'd have to do that anyways, since a
> > con
We've just got to figure out some clever caching/incrementalization
thing and then get one of google's or amazon's or whoever's trucks to
drive up and plug in somewhere. Sounds like a nice research project.
Robby
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Three hours ago, Tony Garnock
Two minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> We've just got to figure out some clever caching/incrementalization
> thing and then get one of google's or amazon's or whoever's trucks
> to drive up and plug in somewhere. Sounds like a nice research
> project.
With caching up results it will be interestin
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Two minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> We've just got to figure out some clever caching/incrementalization
>> thing and then get one of google's or amazon's or whoever's trucks
>> to drive up and plug in somewhere. Sounds like a nice research
On 2011-08-06 8:25 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> *However*, there's an awful lot of functions to try -- going over them
> will make a very slow search...
There's not *that* many. How long does 100,000 function calls take?
I'd imagine you'd search the exports from racket/base before looking
further af
Two minutes ago, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> On 2011-08-06 8:25 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > *However*, there's an awful lot of functions to try -- going over
> > them will make a very slow search...
>
> There's not *that* many. How long does 100,000 function calls take?
Not much, but:
* Just loa
21 matches
Mail list logo
