Altho if someone wanted to improve this somehow (make macro expansion
faster? Find better ways to exploit parallel hardware?) then that would be
really awesome.
Robby
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> That sounds difficult.
>
>
> On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Eric Dobson wr
That sounds difficult.
On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Eric Dobson wrote:
> Also this is a poor solution for me because `raco make` compiles all
> the dependencies serially. I have also tried doing 'raco setup -D' for
> the packages I am dependent on but that has the issue of compiling
> everything
Also this is a poor solution for me because `raco make` compiles all
the dependencies serially. I have also tried doing 'raco setup -D' for
the packages I am dependent on but that has the issue of compiling
everything in those packages which is over kill (and thus slower than
needed).
My end goal
Yes, Sam. I don't think anyone is happy with the status quo.
Perhaps the tradeoffs have changed since last time a careful investigation
happened.
Robby
On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> I don't think this is a good answer for Racket. Certainly the docs
> don't say that
I don't think this is a good answer for Racket. Certainly the docs
don't say that you need to always do this if you want your program to
work right. If Racket doesn't work right in the presence of stale
compiled filed, then it should just error in those cases, rather than
doing the wrong thing. Of
raco make x.rkt && racket x.rkt
Robby
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
> Great that explains it and with that information I was able to
> simplify my test case to
>
> tmp.rkt
> #lang racket
>
> (require "tmp2.rkt")
>
> (define-syntax (go stx)
> (foo))
>
> (go)
>
> tmp2.rkt
Great that explains it and with that information I was able to
simplify my test case to
tmp.rkt
#lang racket
(require "tmp2.rkt")
(define-syntax (go stx)
(foo))
(go)
tmp2.rkt
#lang racket
(provide (for-syntax foo))
(begin-for-syntax
(define (foo) #'3))
So now the question is how do I ru
If I understand the question:
* With 34c3eed615, "pr12644.rkt" can compile and run.
* With d29df205f7, "pr12644.rkt" fails to compile.
* A bytecode form of "pr12644.rkt" compiled with 34c3eed615 can still
run in d29df205f7, because run-time support for "pr12644.rkt" didn't
change.
* W
I have seen multiple times changes in TR not getting properly
propogated to TR programs in my debugging, and I finally have found a
repeatable example.
I am under the impression that if I compile a file and then change a
(transitive) dependency of it, then it should have to be recompiled,
but I am
9 matches
Mail list logo
