Currently, async channels do not have contracts to check their contents. This
is a problem for Typed Racket, and it prevents typed code from interacting with
code that produces async channels.
I started looking into how to add contracts to the language, and it seems to
use the chaperones/impers
I have a simple syntax rule:
Welcome to Racket v5.2.1.
racket@> (define-syntax-rule (with-tables stem body ...)
(let(
[table-publication (string-append stem "_publication")]
[table-author (string-append stem "_author")]
[table-bridge-publication-author (string
Racketeers,
Over the last year, we've been working on a tool for automatically
verifying that programs live up to their contracts. We're happy to
announce that it's now available for people to try out here:
http://scv.umiacs.umd.edu
You type in some modules in the editor, and click either Run
I like that.
Thanks,
Robby
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I'll adjust the docs to clarify that the permission change followed by
> delete is a non-atomic sequence, with no attempt to revert a permission
> change if the delete fails.
>
> Ending up with just the permission
I'll adjust the docs to clarify that the permission change followed by
delete is a non-atomic sequence, with no attempt to revert a permission
change if the delete fails.
Ending up with just the permission change is one possible outcome, and
I hope the clarification will also make other outcomes m
The plan is to add a dependency on the net-rfc* package with update-implies
OR move that code into this place.
This is a bit of a special case given that the old code doesn't work at
all. There are basically no Web browsers that support that version of
WebSockets, so it is only breaking for things
How does this fit with backward compatibility?
Sam
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> Branch: refs/heads/master
> Home: https://github.com/racket/web-server
> Commit: 1c6411c670c1aa86df507a99c64dfc2701d36c0f
>
> https://github.com/racket/web-server/commit/1c641
Is it perhaps worth being more explicit about this possibility in the
docs? I'm thinking of a sentence that says "when is
set, delete-file may have only the effect of changing the permissions
on the file" or similar.
Robby
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 14 Jan 2
At Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:07:08 -0500, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 01/13/2015 02:00 PM, mfl...@racket-lang.org wrote:
> > 9f3c82c Matthew Flatt 2015-01-13 08:47
> > :
> > | Windows: change `delete-{file,directory}` to attempt permission correction
> > |
> > | If a file or directory delete fails, try adj
On 01/13/2015 02:00 PM, mfl...@racket-lang.org wrote:
9f3c82c Matthew Flatt 2015-01-13 08:47
:
| Windows: change `delete-{file,directory}` to attempt permission correction
|
| If a file or directory delete fails, try adjusting the file or directory
| permissions to allow writes, then try deletin
10 matches
Mail list logo
