Re: [racket-dev] [DrDr] R25564 (timeout 1) (unclean 0) (stderr 4) (changes 57)

2012-10-28 Thread Robby Findler
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 wrote: > I received the following report from DrDr: > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM, wrote: >> DrDr has finished bu

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Robby Findler
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 wrote: > * The `for' form now supports `#:break' and `#:final' clauses. Robby On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Vincent St-Amou

[racket-dev] [DrDr] R25564 (timeout 1) (unclean 0) (stderr 4) (changes 57)

2012-10-28 Thread Danny Yoo
I received the following report from DrDr: On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM, 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 > http://drdr.rac

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Matthias Felleisen 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 wouldn't have > blow

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Matthias Felleisen
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,

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Vincent St-Amour
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,

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Robby Findler
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 wrot

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Vincent St-Amour
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

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Matthias Felleisen 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 example: #lang racket/

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Matthias Felleisen
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, 201

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Robby Findler 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 that this has caused in pr

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Robby Findler
Was it wrong before? Suboptimal somehow? On Oct 28, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote: >> >> samth: >> - type->contract fixes/changes (9e1cf579a4, 962f2472e1) >> - add #:opaque and #:struct to require/typed (9054d0db7d) > > Ty

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Ryan Culpepper 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` differently. Thi

Re: [racket-dev] Release Announcement for v5.3.1

2012-10-28 Thread Matthew Flatt
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 (d92b9cb4