At Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:29:43 -0400, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
mflatt:
- new case implementation (by Jon Zeppieri) (7ccf0efce9)
- for/vector improvements (8a26d83651)
- add #:break, #:final to for forms (fc52248446)
- add racket/format (b53e458e3f)
- add define-logger etc (d92b9cb404)
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
samth:
- type-contract fixes/changes (9e1cf579a4, 962f2472e1)
- add #:opaque and #:struct to require/typed (9054d0db7d)
Typed Racket now handles higher-order values provided to untyped
modules under the type `Any`
Was it wrong before? Suboptimal somehow?
On Oct 28, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
samth:
- type-contract fixes/changes (9e1cf579a4, 962f2472e1)
- add #:opaque and #:struct to
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Was it wrong before? Suboptimal somehow?
It was suboptimal in that more operations should be allowed now (such
as accessing elements of a mutable vector provided under the type
`Any`). However, some of the errors
Can you make succinct examples of operations that would have
gone wrong with the past interpretation of Any and can you
explain how the new interpretation will do better? Please
share here.
Thanks -- Matthias
On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Can you make succinct examples of operations that would have
gone wrong with the past interpretation of Any and can you
explain how the new interpretation will do better? Please
share here.
Here's a quick
At Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:29:43 -0400,
Ryan Culpepper wrote:
stamourv:
- scheme language deprecation notice (68260a6c86)
- compat: packages, mutable lists (800a328fe6)
- NaN included in all float types (a6d5a98b61)
* The `#lang scheme' language is deprecated. `#lang racket' should be
Is the first one is something new? Otherwise, I'm not sure that any of
these should be in the release announcement, unless maybe there's something
I'm missing about the changes?
Robby
On Sunday, October 28, 2012, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
At Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:29:43 -0400,
Ryan Culpepper
For the first one, the new part is the deprecation notice in the
docs. Probably not worth including.
The others items are not major changes. I don't mind if they're not
included.
Vincent
At Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:38:44 -0500,
Robby Findler wrote:
Is the first one is something new? Otherwise,
At least in principle, if such code exists, its authors think that it can't
work and therefore won't run it (and get a result all of a sudden).
Is it possible that code blows up under the new operation that wouldn't have
blown up under the old one?
-- Matthias
On Oct 28, 2012, at 1:20 PM,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
At least in principle, if such code exists, its authors think that it can't
work and therefore won't run it (and get a result all of a sudden).
Is it possible that code blows up under the new operation that
I received the following report from DrDr:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM, d...@racket-lang.org wrote:
DrDr has finished building push #25564 after 1.24h.
http://drdr.racket-lang.org/25564/
Push #25564 (which you did) contained a NEW condition that may need
inspecting.
stderr
On second thought, I think we should include all of the bullets
Vincent lists (below) and remove this one Matthew lists:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
* The `for' form now supports `#:break' and `#:final' clauses.
Robby
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:04
Looks like this is something that fails once in a while, eg:
http://drdr.racket-lang.org/25540/collects/tests/gracket/paramz.rktl
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Danny Yoo d...@racket-lang.org wrote:
I received the following report from DrDr:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM,
14 matches
Mail list logo
