The 'case-check' branch of my github fork now implements Robby's
suggestion. [https://github.com/97jaz/racket/tree/case-check]
I ran the full build (including documentation), ran
collects/tests/run-automated-tests.rkt, and started up and played
around with DrRacket. The only logged messages were
I think we should change 'case'.
I think we should also add a clear note to the documentation for case
saying this is not the same as 'case' in Scheme because it uses equal?,
not eqv? and giving a few examples to show the difference to head off any
confusion.
Robby
On Monday, November 26, 2012,
+1
On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think we should change 'case'.
I think we should also add a clear note to the documentation for case saying
this is not the same as 'case' in Scheme because it uses equal?, not eqv?
and giving a few examples to show the
As a follow-up to the discussion on the users list
[http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2012-November/054973.html],
I changed 'case' to use equal? comparison.
The diff, including additional tests and a doc change, is at
Did you try to see if there were any case expressions in our test
suites or while building docs or while starting up and fiddling with
DrRacket that would behave differently with equal??
Robby
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Jon Zeppieri zeppi...@gmail.com wrote:
As a follow-up to the
Not in any systematic way, no. When I first implemented the
triple-dispatch case, I did look through the racket sources to see how
case was actually used there. It turned out that almost all of the
uses were small, simple, and, for lack of a better word, monomorphic.
Looking back at the users
I'm not sure what that error message means, but I think I was thinking
of a different strategy. Something like this (but where you deal with
'else' properly and write in '#%kernel (so you have to use the
expansion of log-info etc etc)), all staying in the same file.
#lang racket
(provide
Thanks! With that approach, I can get it to build. -J
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I'm not sure what that error message means, but I think I was thinking
of a different strategy. Something like this (but where you deal with
'else' properly
I spoke too soon. Now I get a lot of these:
/Users/jaz/src/racket/collects/images/private/flomap-transform.rkt:106:2:
Type Checker: untyped identifier check-em imported from module
case.rkt
in: (define-values (x-min y-min x-max y-max) (case bounded-by ((id)
(values 0 0 w h)) ((corners)
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Jon Zeppieri zeppi...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to give check-em a type for TR without breaking it for
non-typed code?
Yes, you should add an entry to typed-racket/base-env/base-special-env
for `check-em`. Note that you'll have to specify which module
Thanks! -J
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Jon Zeppieri zeppi...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to give check-em a type for TR without breaking it for
non-typed code?
Yes, you should add an entry to
11 matches
Mail list logo
