Hi all,
I think I've found a bug in Typed Racket's predicates, but investigating it
raised a lot of questions, so I was hoping someone wouldn't mind explaining
what's going on here.
A couple weeks ago I wrote a TR program using version 5.1 (like a bonehead,
my shortcut to DrRacket was running it
50 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:48:46 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > Does this mean that `define-for-syntax' becomes as deprecated as
> > `require-for-syntax' etc, right?
>
> At the moment, `define-for-syntax' seems like a more useful
> shorthand than `require-for-synt
It seems a bit too clever for me. FWIW.
Robby
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:48:46 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> Does this mean that `define-for-syntax' becomes as deprecated as
>> `require-for-syntax' etc, right?
>
> At the moment, `define-for-synta
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> The `begin-for-syntax' form in v5.1.3.7 supports variable and macro
> definitions within a module for all phases N >= 0 (finally!).
>
Excellent!
Thanks also for the recent change that lets for-syntax definitions
come after their uses. I've a
At Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:48:46 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Does this mean that `define-for-syntax' becomes as deprecated as
> `require-for-syntax' etc, right?
At the moment, `define-for-syntax' seems like a more useful shorthand
than `require-for-syntax', but maybe not if `for-syntax' works as
`begi
50 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> The `begin-for-syntax' form in v5.1.3.7 supports variable and macro
> definitions within a module for all phases N >= 0 (finally!).
!!!
Does this mean that `define-for-syntax' becomes as deprecated as
`require-for-syntax' etc, right?
Also, does `provide' wo
This is great!
Vincent
At Thu, 8 Sep 2011 14:56:18 -0600,
Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> The `begin-for-syntax' form in v5.1.3.7 supports variable and macro
> definitions within a module for all phases N >= 0 (finally!).
>
>
> As a simple example, you can use `struct' for-syntax without having to
>
amazing.. thank you!
On 09/08/2011 02:56 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> The `begin-for-syntax' form in v5.1.3.7 supports variable and macro
> definitions within a module for all phases N >= 0 (finally!).
>
>
> As a simple example, you can use `struct' for-syntax without having to
> add `#:omit-define-
The `begin-for-syntax' form in v5.1.3.7 supports variable and macro
definitions within a module for all phases N >= 0 (finally!).
As a simple example, you can use `struct' for-syntax without having to
add `#:omit-define-syntaxes':
#lang racket
(begin-for-syntax
(require racket/match)
(st
Posting this on dev so he doesn't see it, though I suppose he might anyhow...
Jeremy Kun is one of only two really really good students I've known at Cal
Poly. He's now a math grad student at UIC (which he chose rather than go to
work for Google), but apparently he's decided to use Racket as the
This should be up soon.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> The hidden series thing was the one I was asking for. Sorry for the
> lack of clarity.
>
> Robby
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochsta
The hidden series thing was the one I was asking for. Sorry for the
lack of clarity.
Robby
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> n Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Robby Findler
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Is i
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> n Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Is it possible to make it remember the setting? Specifically, when go
>> from this page:
>>
>> http://drdr.racket-lang.org/23400/collects/tests/drracket/memory-log.r
At Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:47:17 -0700, Eric Dobson wrote:
> I regularly build racket from HEAD on OS X with no problems, but
> tonight I decided to try the 64 bit version and couldn't get it to
> compile. The error I got was:
>
> Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
> "_iconv_close", reference
Hi Matthew,
On 09/01/11 10:31, Marijn wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> list-box%es are not properly sized; the following code:
I think you pushed a patch to change this. Currently the list-box as
coded below has a minimum size of three items. Unfortunately the scroll
bar seems to have a minimum size which
15 matches
Mail list logo
