20 minutes ago, John Clements wrote:
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > So you need to grab it outside of the new tansformer, just like
> > with plain parameters and closures.
>
> just like with plain parameters? that doesn't sound right to me:
>
> #lang racket
>
> (def
On Oct 16, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 20 minutes ago, J. Ian Johnson wrote:
>> I have a syntax parameter that is bound to a transformer. I want to
>> (at certain points) change the parameterization of this parameter to
>> a new transformer that depends on the old one.
>>
>> I can't
20 minutes ago, J. Ian Johnson wrote:
> I have a syntax parameter that is bound to a transformer. I want to
> (at certain points) change the parameterization of this parameter to
> a new transformer that depends on the old one.
>
> I can't do this:
> #'(syntax-parameterize ([p (syntax-parser
>
I have a syntax parameter that is bound to a transformer. I want to (at certain
points) change the parameterization of this parameter to a new transformer that
depends on the old one.
I can't do this:
#'(syntax-parameterize ([p (syntax-parser
[pat (some-combination-of
To follow up, I just pushed a PLaneT package for the Google API
Discovery service, which means ~40 Google web services including
things like goo.gl, Google+, and so on.
GitHub: https://github.com/greghendershott/gapi
PLaneT: http://planet.racket-lang.org/display.ss?package=gapi.plt&owner=gh
Discl
I just had a really really nice everything-going-the-way-I-expected experience
with syntax-parameterize and the macro stepper. In the case of
syntax-parameterize, my judgment may be clouded by my pleasure in getting
things working. The macro stepper, though, was just exactly what I needed; I'm
Indeed it does! These plots are very nice.
On Oct 16, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 12:02 PM, Michael Wilber wrote:
>> Does surface3d and isosurface3d from racket/plot do what you want?
>>
>> file:///usr/share/racket/doc/plot/renderer3d.html?q=isosurface#(def._((lib._plo
A few minutes ago, John Clements wrote:
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Jon Rafkind wrote:
>
> > This is what syntax-parameters are for.
> >
> > (require racket/stxparam)
> > (define-syntax-parameter m (lambda (stx) (raise-syntax-error 'm "dont use
> > this outside deeper")))
> >
> > (define-
On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Jon Rafkind wrote:
> This is what syntax-parameters are for.
>
> (require racket/stxparam)
> (define-syntax-parameter m (lambda (stx) (raise-syntax-error 'm "dont use
> this outside deeper")))
>
> (define-syntax-rule (deeper e)
>(syntax-parameterize ([m (lambda
On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:18 PM, John Clements wrote:
> This seems like a straightforward question; apologies if I just haven't dug
> deep enough to find the answer.
Gah! There's a syntax-parameterize form? Okay, I just saw this float by in a
commit message, and it sounds like that's the one I wa
This is what syntax-parameters are for.
(require racket/stxparam)
(define-syntax-parameter m (lambda (stx) (raise-syntax-error 'm "dont use this
outside deeper")))
(define-syntax-rule (deeper e)
(syntax-parameterize ([m (lambda (stx) #'1)])
e))
(deeper (m)) -> 1
On 10/16/2012 04:18 PM
This seems like a straightforward question; apologies if I just haven't dug
deep enough to find the answer.
I want to define a macro whose meaning depends on its context. More
specifically, I want to define an "outer" macro that gives a particular meaning
to the "inner" macro.
I can see how t
On 10/16/2012 03:54 PM, J. Ian Johnson wrote:
I'm doing a bit of macrobatics where I'm creating a series of definitions,
during which I want to also do define-for-syntax for some syntax transformers
that are used in a produced syntax-parameterize form.
In a top level call to this macro, things
On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 07:26 PM, John Clements wrote:
>> I can imagine doing something more complicated, but what I really want to
>> ask is this: for those of you with experience in other dataflow languages,
>> how do they solve this?
>
> The s
On 10/16/2012 12:02 PM, Michael Wilber wrote:
Does surface3d and isosurface3d from racket/plot do what you want?
file:///usr/share/racket/doc/plot/renderer3d.html?q=isosurface#(def._((lib._plot/main..rkt)._isosurface3d))
In particular:
#lang racket
(require plot)
(define (f x y)
(+ 2 (* 2
I'm doing a bit of macrobatics where I'm creating a series of definitions,
during which I want to also do define-for-syntax for some syntax transformers
that are used in a produced syntax-parameterize form.
In a top level call to this macro, things would be fine. However, I set up some
syntax p
Does surface3d and isosurface3d from racket/plot do what you want?
file:///usr/share/racket/doc/plot/renderer3d.html?q=isosurface#(def._((lib._plot/main..rkt)._isosurface3d))
Gregory Woodhouse writes:
> I'm intrigued. I suppose pattern based macros could be used to implement
> operations like +
I'm intrigued. I suppose pattern based macros could be used to implement
operations like + and *, and passing to the field of quotients should formally
be no different from rational arithmetic. Are you interested in Chebyshev
polynomials for a particular reason (e.g, applications to differential
I hadn't thought of making two passes. Thanks!
I'd have to have the terms indexed by two different orderings
(nondecreasing in x's degree and nondecreasing in y's), or be willing to
sort. That seems tricky or slowish, but much better than what I've had
in mind. It should also work with other o
19 matches
Mail list logo
