Score another one for random testing! :)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi
> wrote:
>>
>> How does compare to builtin mutable hashes?
>
>
>
> The following code represents a rough hashtable equivalent of what my rb
> code
On 11/19/12 03:40, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
It's a problem with the contract boundary. The examples work fine in Typed
Racket. The problem type is this:
(: flomap-transform
(case->
(flomap Flomap-Transform -> flomap)
(flomap Flomap
I think it is probably best to have the OpenBSD port be a faithful
match to 5.3.1. This isn't a major bug and hopefully you'll just get
the fix in 5.3.2 or whatever the next version is called in 2-3 months.
Does that sound ok to you?
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero
On 11/19/12 19:21, Robby Findler wrote:
I think it is probably best to have the OpenBSD port be a faithful
match to 5.3.1. This isn't a major bug and hopefully you'll just get
the fix in 5.3.2 or whatever the next version is called in 2-3 months.
Does that sound ok to you?
Temporally I'll remov
A small suggestion:
I used roughly this macro (credit Jonah Kagan) recently to help me write
some tests for parsing code that agnostic to which source position is
generated in the parse:
(define-syntax test/match
(syntax-rules ()
[(test/match actual expected pred)
(let ([actual-val act
That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate
it into rackunit? -- Matthias
On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:
> A small suggestion:
>
> I used roughly this macro (credit Jonah Kagan) recently to help me write some
> tests for parsing code
I written things like this before, so something built-in would be useful
to me too.
David
On 11/19/12 5:01 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate
it into rackunit? -- Matthias
On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs Po
Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" not "test" tho,
right?)
Robby
On Monday, November 19, 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can
> integrate it into rackunit? -- Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM,
Oh, I see.
If you really need the lists of files to be the same, it is probably best
to make both versions have the files (altho don't different architectures
have different sets of files in general?).
Probably you'll be breaking the distro if you remove files.
Robby
On Monday, November 19, 201
We use test in PLAI, and I suggested it in that context (eg,
unification, where you don't care about the gensym'ed names of logic
variables), which is probably why it got called that.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" no
> Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" not "test" tho,
right?)
Indeed; Jonah was writing w.r.t plai, which uses test. Should use check-
in rackunit.
I noticed that this also violates, from the rackunit docs:
"Although checks are implemented as macros, which is necessary to gra
On 11/19/12 8:20 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:
> Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" not "test"
tho, right?)
Indeed; Jonah was writing w.r.t plai, which uses test. Should use
check- in rackunit.
I noticed that this also violates, from the rackunit docs:
"Although checks are
I think you should just stick "(except @racket[check-],
since its first/second argument is a match pattern)" or something like
that into the docs in your pull request.
Also test cases: I think there is a test suite for rackunit somewhere;
let me know if you have trouble with it and I can add tests
Predicates in general would be really awesome. I think the testing
infrastructure for Sperber's book (DMDA) has something like this.
Making it lightweight is what matters most, whether through a new
match form or a more general predicate form.
Shriram
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:25 PM, David Van
That might be nice, but a form for including a match pattern seems
like something that would be really great to have.
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, David Van Horn wrote:
> On 11/19/12 8:20 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" not "t
rackunit has check-pred, of course.
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> Predicates in general would be really awesome. I think the testing
> infrastructure for Sperber's book (DMDA) has something like this.
>
> Making it lightweight is what matters most, wheth
> (? P) => (lambda (x) (match x [P true] [_ false]))
I like this quite a bit. It wouldn't be crazy to add it as
match-pred(icate) right next to match-lambda, match-let, and friends (
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/match.html?q=match&q=match-pred#(form._((lib._racket/match..rkt)._match-lam
I think it is better to have a check-match since that way people are
more likely to find it.
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:
>> (? P) => (lambda (x) (match x [P true] [_ false]))
>
> I like this quite a bit. It wouldn't be crazy to add it as
> match-pred(icate) r
Gotcha. match-pred can be a separate thing.
check-match can also let you use the identifiers bound in the match with an
optional third argument, which relies on more than match-pred anyway.
That's what I'm doing.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I think it is better to
I think I've successfully sent a thingie to you:
https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/171
Let me know if I Did It Wrong. This is the first time I've clicked
the "Pull Request" button on Github.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:
> Gotcha. match-pred can be a separate thin
20 matches
Mail list logo
