On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Roman Klochkov wrote:
> Thank you. You answer is very useful.
>
>
> > You have to be careful about duplicating inputs in expanded code.
>
> I thought, that hygiene implies not only cl:gensym, but also once-only. Is
> there something like
> http://common-lisp.net/p
Thank you. You answer is very useful.
> You have to be careful about duplicating inputs in expanded code.
I thought, that hygiene implies not only cl:gensym, but also once-only. Is
there something like
http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-utilities/doc/once-only.html in Racket?
> A lot of the
Vincent, Carl,
I stumbled on another workaround, defining the specific methods outside of
define-generics, and then rebinding them withing #:defaults.
Anyway, it was only for a small exercise.
Thanks for the quick reply,
Bert
From: c...@ccs.neu.edu
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:32:50 -0400
Subject
Roman,
Bear in mind that by expanding (square x) to (square x x), that means if
someone writes
(square (perform-expensive-computation))
then you will expand it to:
(* (perform-expensive-computation) (perform-expensive-computation))
You have to be careful about duplicating inputs in expande
I like to make syntax-optimized functions.
(define-syntax (square stx)
(syntax-case stx (square expt)
[(square (square expr)) #'(expt expr 4)]
[(square (expt expr n)) (if (number? (syntax-e #'n))
#`(expt expr #,(* (syntax-e
#'n) 2))
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:14:31PM -0400, Sean McBeth wrote:
> Hey! Thanks for the story! Yeah, here I'm complaining about unstylish code
> over 15 years, you've got a completely different problem! Very interesting.
>
> In a way, it fits one of my categories. I'm sure there was a motivation for
>
On 2013-07-10 18:03:07 -0400, Sean McBeth wrote:
> -- Embrace more of the Unix philosophy of small programs doing one thing
> well. You cannot deny that programs like ls, cd, mkdir, grep, etc. have
> lasted a very, very long time and have no need for being changed (beyond
> the occasional disc
make time for her.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Steve Lett wrote:
> How do I convince my computer-illiterate wife that I'm not wasting time on
> learning to program?
>
> Also: Just started HtDP today and came up with this thought. "Except ye
> become as a little child ye shall not enter the
How do I convince my computer-illiterate wife that I'm not wasting time on
learning to program?
Also: Just started HtDP today and came up with this thought. "Except ye
become as a little child ye shall not enter the kingdom of programming."
Steve
Racket Users list:
http:/
Hey! Thanks for the story! Yeah, here I'm complaining about unstylish code
over 15 years, you've got a completely different problem! Very interesting.
In a way, it fits one of my categories. I'm sure there was a motivation for
writing an Algol 68 compiler, a motivation that just did not stand up t
How can I resist this request to talk about ancient code? Even if it
seems off-topic?
My own long-lived examples are a type-theoretical program verifier,
and an Algol 68 compiler.
In 1972 I started an Algol 68 conpiler, worked on it for a few years at
the University of Alberta, decided to aba
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:03:07PM -0400, Sean McBeth wrote:
> particularly suited for TDD?
Let me guess -- Test-Directed Development? Test-Directed Design?
-- hendrik
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
Hello, I am trying to use the racket networking libraries for a basic set
of get and post requests. I need to send a url of the form:
http://foo.com/?url=http://bar.com?baz=1000 (NOT form encoded)
however, the standard get-impure-port procedure seems to enforce
url-encoding, which ends up submitt
I just spent the last several hours sifting through the folders and folders
of code that have accumulated on my hard drive over the last 15 years. I do
this about once a year or so, so there actually wasn't anything from as far
back as 15 years because somewhere in the middle I was ashamed of how m
On 07/10/13 23:00, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
#lang racket
(module+ test ;; I like to specify dependencies for test submodules in a test
submodule:
(require rackunit))
;; N -> N
;; double the given number
(module+ test
(check-equal? (double 2) 4)
(check-equal? (double 2) 3))
(define (do
On Jul 10, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
wrote:
> In Beginning Student mode I can to define a test before of the function:
>
> (check-expect (double 2) 4)
> (define (double n)
>(* n 2))
>
> In #lang racket, the next code fails:
>
> (require rackunit)
> (check-equal? (d
In Beginning Student mode I can to define a test before of the function:
(check-expect (double 2) 4)
(define (double n)
(* n 2))
In #lang racket, the next code fails:
(require rackunit)
(check-equal? (double 2) 4)
(define (double n)
(* n 2))
Is it possible to write the tests before of
Bert,
I've just pushed a fix to this bug, which I had written previously as part
of some other work I'm doing with generics. As Vincent already pointed
out, if you're using a released version of Racket and updating to the new
code is problematic, you can always work around the bug with your own
w
That's a bug. I'll push a fix shortly.
In the meantime, here's a workaround: instead of using #:defaults, you
can define for each method `m' (and for the predicate of the generic
interface), a function `m/defaults' that explicitly dispatches to the
default cases, then falls back to `m'. Then, expo
Might want to Google "Knuth +Literate Programming" or just "Literate
Programming" His book (collection of articles as I remember) discusses the
aforementioned problems and his solution...
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0800, Ben Duan wr
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0800, Ben Duan wrote:
> Thank you all for your great insights. I've learned a lot through your
> books, your documents and your discussions here. You have saved me a large
> amount of time figuring out the better way for programming.
That's what we're here for!
---
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:34:16 +0800
> From: Ben Duan
> To: users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [racket] Why experienced programmers don?t use comments?
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Th
ang.org
> Subject: Re: [racket] Why experienced programmers don?t use comments?
> Message-ID:
> <
> canww-jkh61e-fjpmcwvq-qhpajcgbdtxirbqfnpvm6jhkpq...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Thank you all for your great
What is your (level of) programming experience?
On Jul 10, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Steve Lett wrote:
> I recently downloaded four things. Picturing Programs, How to Design
> Programs, Realm of Racket, and Intro to Systematic Program Design, from
> Coursera.
>
> My question is, in which order sho
I recently downloaded four things. Picturing Programs, How to Design
Programs, Realm of Racket, and Intro to Systematic Program Design, from
Coursera.
My question is, in which order should I complete these? And why?
Thanks, Steve
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lan
Helo,
in the documentation it is mentioned that the syntax for define-generics
#:defaults is the same as for struct #:methods:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/struct-generics.html#%28form._%28%28lib._racket%2Fgeneric..rkt%29._define-generics%29%29
and #:methods specifies that define/generic
26 matches
Mail list logo
