[racket] dylib error on macos

hi, #lang racket (require plot) gives on my mac os 10.5 system ffi-lib: couldn't open "/Applications/Racket v5.0.1/collects/plot/ compiled/native/i386-macosx/libfit.dylib" (dlopen(/Applications/Racket v5.0.1/collects/plot/compiled/native/i386-macosx/libfit.dylib, 10): no suitable image fou

Re: [racket] documentation example for slideshow/pict

That's really funny, Neil! And congratulations on earning your living as a racketeer. And surely you're one of the Racket people who generally know what they are talking about. I already said I liked Racket, because of the integrated editor that even kids love, and so I can easily edit Latex fil

Re: [racket] syntax-case literals matching in a procedure defined via begin-for-syntax vs (require (for-syntax ...))

YC wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:00 AM, rafkind > wrote: You need a (require (for-template scheme/base)) in the 'literal.ss' file because the function is at phase 0 producing syntax at a lower phase (-1, which is template), so you need to import t

[racket] Racket 5.0.1 VM out of memory during build

Hello, I'm trying to upgrade the FreeBSD Racket port from 5.0 to 5.0.1. Version 5.0 builds fine, but with version 5.0.1 I get this error on the same hardware/OS (FreeBSD 8.1 i386, 1 CPU): raco setup: running: teachpack/teachpack.scrbl raco setup: running: test-box-recovery/test-box-recovery.

Re: [racket] syntax-case literals matching in a procedure defined via begin-for-syntax vs (require (for-syntax ...))

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:00 AM, rafkind wrote: > > You need a (require (for-template scheme/base)) in the 'literal.ss' file > because the function is at phase 0 producing syntax at a lower phase (-1, > which is template), so you need to import the bindings from scheme/base for > that phase. > Ah

Re: [racket] syntax-case literals matching in a procedure defined via begin-for-syntax vs (require (for-syntax ...))

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 01:23:00 -0700, YC wrote: > Hi all - > > I am running into a difference of behaviors when I define a procedure with > syntax-case via `begin-for-syntax` versus requiring it from another module > via (require (for-syntax ...)). It seems that if the procedure has > syntax-case l

[racket] syntax-case literals matching in a procedure defined via begin-for-syntax vs (require (for-syntax ...))

Hi all - I am running into a difference of behaviors when I define a procedure with syntax-case via `begin-for-syntax` versus requiring it from another module via (require (for-syntax ...)). It seems that if the procedure has syntax-case literals defined, the literal-matching works if the procedu