I'm extending `add-between' by a few keyword arguments:
* #:before-last -- specifies the item to be used before the last one
(useful for generating "x, y, z and w" with `string-join' that will
get similar keywords too)
* #:first, #:last -- specifies things that go before/after the list,
sim
Yesterday, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2012-06-21 13:03:18 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > Nice. How about adding a big "deprecated" to the class100 docs,
> > and make a note to remove it in a year?
>
> That trick is neat, but would it be a problem to just remove it now?
Did you add some reminder
An hour ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > Meanwhile, we should look more carefully at the content of
> > specific error messages to see if we can improve either the
> > wording or the information provided in fields.
First encounter with a new(er) error message:
| link: module mismatch;
| possibly, b
Adding a `regexp-replaces' leads to the question of where to add it:
`racket/string' makes sense more than `racket/private/string' since
it's really not something that should be considered core. But to make
it correspond to `regexp-replace*' it should deal with both strings
and bytes, so `racket/s
Just now, Laurent wrote:
>
> Maybe we could consider dictionaries for the replacement lists?
No, because the keys are regexp patterns, so there's no point in using
dictionaries.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Yesterday, Laurent wrote:
> > add1
> > I also use such a function from time to time, and I'd be happy to
> > have it in the string or regexp libs.
>
> I'll assume that without other replies, there are no objections to
> adding it?
>
> Also, a
Yesterday, Laurent wrote:
> add1
> I also use such a function from time to time, and I'd be happy to
> have it in the string or regexp libs.
I'll assume that without other replies, there are no objections to
adding it?
Also, at least as a start, I'm thinking of a function that looks just
like the
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I don't like the way these example have the error message twice:
> once in prose and one in field-and-value form. It's difficult enough
> to get either one of those right, but it's particularly difficult to
> construct prose right, which is why the new convention e
Yesterday, David Van Horn wrote:
> I think {-1,0,1} is the worst of all worlds. I prefer the more
> lenient approach of allowing any number[*]. This follows the Lisp
> tradition of returning "more than just the truth", since a
> comparison can also convey the difference between the arguments; in
Yesterday, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 09:38 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > More than a week ago, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> >> On 06/11/2012 02:36 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >>> Yesterday, Danny Yoo wrote:
>
> It's a little unfortunate that there's a slight impedance mismatch
> b
Yesterday, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>
> The reorganization would discourage people from trying to add
> contracts to modules in the racket/pre-contracts subcollection. It's
> apparent from the name, as opposed to being discoverable by running
> the compiler.
Oh you mean actually *move* the files the
11 matches
Mail list logo
