On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> I decided to look at why 'make' with a fully-built install takes a
> long time, and got a surprising result. First, the 'link-all.rkt'
> script takes about 17 seconds on my machine, almost all of it in
> `pkg-install`. I then profiled
I decided to look at why 'make' with a fully-built install takes a
long time, and got a surprising result. First, the 'link-all.rkt'
script takes about 17 seconds on my machine, almost all of it in
`pkg-install`. I then profiled this, and got the surprising result
that the majority of the time is
I build Racket while keeping my forked repo's `master` branch an
exact, fast-forwardable copy of PLT's remote upstream `master`. [1]
This has worked fine building Racket on Linux, and continues to do so.
But on OS X, I need to follow these instructions from INSTALL.TXT, wrt
the pkg re-org:
>>>
O
Hi all,
Is there some reason the compiler can't either (a) ignore or (b) replace
the outdated .zos when it comes across a situation like the following?
compiled/html-utils_rkt.zo::0: read (compiled): wrong version for
compiled code
compiled version: 5.90.0.5
expected version: 5.90.0.9
context...:
No it is not easy.
It should all be there in the expanded output. TR stores the type of
an expression in a hashtable on the side, see
https://github.com/plt/racket/blob/master/pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/types/type-table.rkt#L34.
So if you did
#lang racket
(require racke
I'm essentially looking for a dump of the typed AST of a given typed racket
program for use in an undergraduate research project. Is there an easy way
to get this information?
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
6 matches
Mail list logo
