J. Ian Johnson writes:
> You'll want foo-bar-baz the field accessor to be bound to something
> else that won't be shadowed when you define foo-bar-baz the generic
> function. Your define-generics likely is not in the same scope as
> the struct foo-bar definition, since
Right.
> Leads to a s
Lawrence Woodman writes:
> I have seen problems with version control crop up for so long and
> so often that I can't see why people think Racket and it's
> third-party packages would be immune to what has happened in every
> other package eco-system I have used: Ruby, Tcl, Shared C Libraries
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:35:06 +0200, Asumu Takikawa
wrote:
In addition, the test predicate should take an exception value so
`negative?` won't work. You probably want a predicate like
`(λ (e) (regexp-match #rx"negative?" (exn-message e)))` instead.
Slightly OT:
check-exn can directly take a re
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:03:43 +0200, Greg Hendershott
wrote:
I've been wondering whether it would be more practical for
struct-generated
names to concatenate with colon (":") as a separator, rather than with
minus
("-").
1. Yes. In addition to name conflicts, it's harder on human code
re
Hi,
from the docs on #:methods argument to struct:
"If #:methods gen:name method-defs is provided, then gen:name must be a
transformer binding for the static information about a generic group
produced by define-generics. The method-defs define the methods of
gen:name. If any method of gen:
On Aug 28, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Lawrence Woodman wrote:
> I have used: Ruby, Tcl, Shared C Libraries under Linux, Various Linux
> Distros, etc. All of these either
> started without distinct version control, or started with a single version
> package model and now all
> support multiple parallel
No, you don't have to do anything. The #f is an internal detail that is no
longer exposed to the user, so I should probably remove it from the
documentation.
Carl Eastlund
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Tobias Hammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> from the docs on #:methods argument to struct:
>
> "If #:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Galler wrote:
> Racket uses applicative order
For the record, there is no such thing as 'applicative order.' There is
call-by-value and there is a humongous misunderstanding called 'applicative
order' in the 1960s and 1970s that was fixed by Plotkin's 1973 paper o
On 2013-08-28 11:14:50 +0200, Tobias Hammer wrote:
> Can anyone explain the part with the #f to me? Does it mean that i
> have to (define some-gen-fun #f) to indicate it's not implemented?
> But that seems to have no real impact as i get the exactly same
> error with just leaving it out?
I think t
As far as I know, it has never been necessary to explicitly define absent
methods. The paragraph is just describing what absent methods are
implicitly bound to by the #:methods form. It used to be that methods were
bound as the value #f in the body of the #:methods definitions themselves,
so the
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
> For the record, there is no such thing as 'applicative order.' There is
> call-by-value and there is a humongous misunderstanding
> called 'applicative order'
When authors use this term what do they cite as being the
authoritative sou
On both a compiled from source 5.90 and a 5.3 downloaded and installed from
the website I am unable to load the plai-typed language. I get "collection
not found" errors in both instances. Am I missing something? Do I need to
take an extra step to add plai-typed?
-Logan
Rack
At Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:39:20 -0500, Logan Mayfield wrote:
> On both a compiled from source 5.90 and a 5.3 downloaded and installed from
> the website I am unable to load the plai-typed language. I get "collection
> not found" errors in both instances. Am I missing something? Do I need to
> take an
They are not beginners in the sense that they have had 3 semesters of Java.
However, they are beginners in that they are new to Racket.
I have previously used the Racket teaching languages, and just wanted to try
out rackunit.
Thank you for the advice.
George
-Original Message-
From: Ma
On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Grant Rettke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>> For the record, there is no such thing as 'applicative order.' There is
>> call-by-value and there is a humongous misunderstanding
>> called 'applicative order'
>
> When authors
On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Alexander McLin wrote:
> In fact I learned that in SCIP, so I need to check when the edition I have
> was published to see how old it really is.
See other email. Bottom line is that Gerry and Hal are not PL researchers --
never have been -- and I doubt that they
At Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:45:23 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> Lawrence Woodman writes:
>
> > I have seen problems with version control crop up for so long and
> > so often that I can't see why people think Racket and it's
> > third-party packages would be immune to what has happened in every
> >
No problem.
While we are on names. We use
-- "Matt" for Matthew Might, a Utah researcher who also uses Racket;
-- "Matthew" for Matthew Flatt, the CEO of PLT Design, Inc, creator of Racket,
and ruler of the kingdom
-- "Matthias" for me, which yes, is a form of Matthew (used in Germanic and
To the extent this is relying on package providers to do the right
thing -- relying somewhat on convention and best practices:
I think now would be a great time for a blog post (and maybe a
RacketCon presentation) stating the best practices.
Including things that seem obvious to core Racket devs.
On 28/08/13 12:27, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:45:23 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
Lawrence Woodman writes:
> I have seen problems with version control crop up for so long and
> so often that I can't see why people think Racket and it's
> third-party packages would be immune
Hello,
I would like play with macros, and for keep it as simple as possible i
decided
to work with macro at runtime, i just pass the arguments encapsulated in a
syntax object.
But with the code under i get :
test.rkt:8:16: syntax-parse: literal is unbound in phase 0 (phase 0
relative to the
On 28/08/13 16:33, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Aug 28, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Lawrence Woodman wrote:
I have used: Ruby, Tcl, Shared C Libraries under Linux, Various Linux Distros,
etc. All of these either
started without distinct version control, or started with a single version
package model a
On 08/28/2013 04:59 PM, antoine wrote:
Hello,
I would like play with macros, and for keep it as simple as possible i
decided
to work with macro at runtime, i just pass the arguments encapsulated in a
syntax object.
But with the code under i get :
test.rkt:8:16: syntax-parse: literal is unbound
I'm interested in learning more about Racket, macros, programming
languages, and anything else that will make me a better programmer. The
problem is, there is so much material out there that I'd appreciate help in
prioritizing what to do first.
As a background, I understand that using Racket is on
Lawrence Woodman wrote at 08/28/2013 04:51 PM:
While bringing my concerns to the mailing list and responding to other
peoples responses I had this nagging feeling that I was missing
something.
I can see from the core devs that individually and collectively you
have a
lot of experience to draw u
Thank you for the correction. I will be more careful in the future.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> No problem.
>
> While we are on names. We use
> -- "Matt" for Matthew Might, a Utah researcher who also uses Racket;
> -- "Matthew" for Matthew Flatt, the CEO of P
I would like to understand this some more.
My understanding of applicative order is also connected with normal order,
I thought applicative order just means that all arguments given to a
procedure are always evaluated before the procedure is applied, the
left-right or right-left detail is irreleva
hello all; I have installed DrRacket on Ubuntu 12.04 via apt-get and am
running into some troubles. I find that while I can run it with
root privileges fine, if I try to run the program as a normal user the
program crashes with an error : "SIGSEGV MAPERR si_code 1 fault on addr
0xd8 Aborted (core d
Thank you for the illuminating primer, Matt. I hadn't realized that it was
such a questionable term.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Grant Rettke wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> > wrote:
> >> For
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
> So if you wish to connect LC and PL and speak about order, please study the
> above citations. The whole discussion is summarized in the first part of the
> REDEX book (see redex.racket-lang.org).
Thank you.
Ra
Have not seen this. I run 12.04 and always use the package available
from the PLT website without issue.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Corey Italiano wrote:
> hello all; I have installed DrRacket on Ubuntu 12.04 via apt-get and am
> running into some troubles. I find that while I can run it w
LAMBDA: The Ultimate Imperative
LAMBDA: The Ultimate GOTO
Automata via Macros
http://www.readscheme.org/
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Nick Shelley wrote:
> I'm interested in learning more about Racket, macros, programming languages,
> and anything else that will make me a better programmer
Thanks for everyone's advice. I think I will take it and find another
solution. Thanks!
--
Chad Albers
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote:
> Generally these kinds of macros are not a good idea, because it's
> difficult to combine them with other macros. It's probably be
Just downloaded Racket 5.3.6.
When I open a new DrRacket tab and type the following:
#lang racket
(require (for-label racket))
I get the following warning in large red letters at the bottom of the
window where the background expansion messages are shown:
+: contract violation expected: number
34 matches
Mail list logo
