Hello,
I am working on porting the racket compiler to racket. But it still has a
bit to go and I have not yet ported the optimizer. So go right ahead.
Thank you.
~Leif Andersen
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Gustavo Massaccesi
wrote:
> There is project to rewrite the Racket compiler in Rac
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are
>> packages in "main-distribution",
>
>
> Personally, I have used the 'same' one-line command
> going back t
On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are
> packages in "main-distribution",
Personally, I have used the 'same' one-line command
going back to csv through svn and now git (_update).
When I write "Speaking as t
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only
>> "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt
>> people expect `make` in the Rac
At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only
> "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt
> people expect `make` in the Racket source tree to update their
> software somewhere else on
On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only
> "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt
> people expect `make` in the Racket source tree to update their
> software somewhere else on the
Somewhat related, would it make sense to add a function like stx-e that would
be like (if (syntax? stx) (syntax-e stx) stx) to syntax/stx?
On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:18 AM, Alexis King wrote:
> I was just thinking today that I would, for example, find it useful to have a
> (zip ...) function in rac
(I was thinking dissertations.)
On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Dan Burton wrote:
> Matthias, when you say "At some point TR will move on," what do you mean by
> that? I, for one, would like to see TR more tightly integrated with regular
> racket a la progressive types, rather than branching o
Matthias, when you say "At some point TR will move on," what do you mean by
that? I, for one, would like to see TR more tightly integrated with regular
racket a la progressive types, rather than branching off into its own arena.
On Tuesday, February 17, 2015, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> At som
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Continuing in reverse order:
>
> - My sense is that the switch to `make` so that it updates packages,
> which was a result of
>
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2015-January/065345.html
>
> has been a good change for most people
That would work great for me. And I think that I recall that "make
base" is the target that I would use to build enough to be able to run
`raco pkg update --all --auto --pull try` and then finish off with
`raco setup`, right?
Robby
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Continu
Continuing in reverse order:
- My sense is that the switch to `make` so that it updates packages,
which was a result of
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2015-January/065345.html
has been a good change for most people most of the time.
The `as-is` target is currently available for bui
Yes, that's true.
Robby
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard
> wrote:
>> 2015-02-17 14:26 GMT+01:00 Robby Findler :
>>> I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
>>> adding aliases.
>>
>> A
At some point TR will move on, and perhaps the time has come.
On Feb 17, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> I don't think we should add functions to TR that are not in Racket and
> that are not clearly type-related (e.g., `cast`).
>
> I also like Jens's solution better. Education v
I don't think we should add functions to TR that are not in Racket and
that are not clearly type-related (e.g., `cast`).
I also like Jens's solution better. Education vs crutches.
Vincent
At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:39:16 -0500,
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
> I'd add them to Typed Racket. That's
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
> adding aliases.
>
> Perhaps a better way to get people coming from Haskell would be to
> write an essay specifically aimed there?
>
> - Step 1: use variables.
> - Step
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard
wrote:
> 2015-02-17 14:26 GMT+01:00 Robby Findler :
>> I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
>> adding aliases.
>
> A alternative: Added the word zip to the documentation index,
> link it to map and have an exampl
2015-02-17 14:26 GMT+01:00 Robby Findler :
> I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
> adding aliases.
A alternative: Added the word zip to the documentation index,
link it to map and have an example where in (map list ...) is used.
Also: Isn't zip in srfi/1 ?
/Jen
I think there are two seperable issues here:
1. Can we make `raco pkg update -a` better/more robust in this case?
2. Should `make` run `raco pkg update -a`?
In reverse order:
- I think `make`, by default, shouldn't update anything, and that we
should have a different Makefile target which updat
I'd add them to Typed Racket. That's what Haskellians are most likely to
explore and when they find them, it's a good thing (tm). -- Matthias
On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:18 AM, Alexis King wrote:
> I was just thinking today that I would, for example, find it useful to have a
> (zip ...) function
Sam and I have run into a situation where `make` fails because we've
set up clone pkgs and made local modifications in a way that makes the
git commands fail [*].
My guess is that the right thing to do is for me to know about these
pkgs and do something special when running make. I'm thinking that
I don't think the libraries are sufficient as is, but I would resist
adding aliases.
Perhaps a better way to get people coming from Haskell would be to
write an essay specifically aimed there?
- Step 1: use variables.
- Step 2: here are `for` loops!
;)
Robby
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:18 A
22 matches
Mail list logo
