Sounds great to me!
Robby
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
> > Is the documentation and testing sufficient?
>
> There's no documentation yet, and no, there needs to be a bit more
> testing. cfg-parser's interface is th
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Is the documentation and testing sufficient?
There's no documentation yet, and no, there needs to be a bit more
testing. cfg-parser's interface is the same as that in
parser-tools/yacc, so I can borrow from the prose there. But as for
error
I thought it would be helpful to find the most precise types possible
for numeric functions. I wrote a program that infers them using a few
thousand representative argument values, which have been chosen to
exhibit underflow, overflow, exactness preservation (e.g. perfect
squares for `sqrt' and
Is the documentation and testing sufficient?
Robby
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I would like to move cfg-parser, which currently exists in the algol60
> collection, into parser-tools proper. That way, my 'ragg' package can
> refer to it from there. Is this ok?
> ___
I would like to move cfg-parser, which currently exists in the algol60
collection, into parser-tools proper. That way, my 'ragg' package can
refer to it from there. Is this ok?
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
I solved it by not using `for/sum' and writing this ridiculous function
for the recursive base case and the initial values in `x':
(: zero-of (case-> (Real -> Real)
(Number -> Number)))
(define (zero-of x) 0)
Fortunately, it should get inlined. I also renamed `U' to `V'
At Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:57:39 -0700,
Neil Toronto wrote:
>
> On 01/02/2013 02:51 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> > In your experience, have these types caused you trouble other than when
> > you went looking for them specifically?
>
> Not that I recall. If I stick to union types like Integer,
> Exa
On Jan 3, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I went to fix a typo (`tech' to `racket') and ended up moving and
> tweaking the text. I hope the changes are ok.
>
> I like the way the example distinguishes the package name, collection
> name, and library name, and so I added a sentence to ex
Ignore the previous example. Here is the example again, now
with correct usage of case-lambda. The for/sum problem remains.
/Jens Axel
#lang typed/racket
(require math)
(: matrix-solve-upper
(All (A) (case->
((Matrix Real) (Matrix Real) -> (Matrix Real))
Apropos the discussion on porting from Racket to Typed Racket.
The following snippet was written in Racket, and now I want
to add types.
The problem is that I have used for/sum and due to the case->
I can't see how to change the for/sum to a for/sum: .
/Jens Axel
#lang typed/racket
(require math
Looks great to me.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I went to fix a typo (`tech' to `racket') and ended up moving and
> tweaking the text. I hope the changes are ok.
>
> I like the way the example distinguishes the package name, collection
> name, and library name, and so
I went to fix a typo (`tech' to `racket') and ended up moving and
tweaking the text. I hope the changes are ok.
I like the way the example distinguishes the package name, collection
name, and library name, and so I added a sentence to explicitly note
that `require' lines don't refer to packages. T
12 matches
Mail list logo
