> * Jon Rafkind
> Release tests for (one of the) linux releases:
> - Test that the `racket' and `racket-textual' source releases
> compile fine (note that they're still called `plt' and `mz' at
> this stage).
> - Test that the binary installers for both work, try each one in
> b
Checklist items for the v5.3.6 release
(using the v5.3.5.900 release candidate build)
Search for your name to find relevant items, reply when you finish an
item (please indicate which item/s is/are done). Also, if you have any
commits that should have been picked, make sure that the changes ar
At Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:59:04 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think we should change to two:
>
> * 'installation --- like now
>
> * 'user --- specific to a user and "installation", but where
> installations are identified by a configurable name (as opposed to,
> say, the installation's p
It has exactly that (without the dynamic check). And no, I don't think so.
On Friday, July 26, 2013, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> [Catching up]
>
> Does CML have anything even remotely comparable to handle-evt
> and does it assign a type distinction?
>
> -- Matthias
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at
[Catching up]
Does CML have anything even remotely comparable to handle-evt
and does it assign a type distinction?
-- Matthias
On Jul 25, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2013-07-25 12:36:32 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> My thought was that you should only use `handle-evt' if
5 matches
Mail list logo
