On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Manfred Lotz wrote at 12/22/2013 01:54 PM:
>> Or perhaps even better create my directory structure on the fly and
>> build my test cases upon this?
> Yes, like that. It can be tedious to develop, but then your test suite is
> more likely to
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:53:05 -0500
Greg Hendershott
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Neil Van Dyke
> wrote:
> > Manfred Lotz wrote at 12/22/2013 01:54 PM:
> >> Or perhaps even better create my directory structure on the fly and
> >> build my test cases upon this?
> > Yes, like that. It
On Dec 23, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Manfred Lotz wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:53:05 -0500
> Greg Hendershott
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Neil Van Dyke
>> wrote:
>>> Manfred Lotz wrote at 12/22/2013 01:54 PM:
Or perhaps even better create my directory structure on the fly
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:29:31 -0500
Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Manfred Lotz
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:53:05 -0500
> > Greg Hendershott
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Neil Van Dyke
> >> wrote:
> >>> Manfred Lotz wrote at 12/
For that, you will need to wrap the whole loop because (in-directory ...)
fails, and no, I don't know how to resume this optimized loop:
#lang racket ;; foo.rkt
(define start-dir ".")
;;
(with-handlers (((lambda (x) #t) (lambda (e) (log-warning "in-directory
failed"
(for ([f (in-direc
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:20:32 -0500
Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> For that, you will need to wrap the whole loop because
> (in-directory ...) fails, and no, I don't know how to resume this
> optimized loop:
>
> #lang racket ;; foo.rkt
>
> (define start-dir ".")
>
> ;;
> (with-handlers (((lam
I had a look into collects/racket/private/for.rkt where in-directory is
defined.
I have to admit that I don't understand much of the stuff as this is a
level of Racket I haven't yet mastered.
Nevertheless, there is
(when (directory-exists? fp)
(loop fp p)
Here it should be
Sadly, I think you may have to re-implement in-directory (with a recursive
traversal like the one in for.rkt) but use file-or-directory-permission
before you try to go into a subdirectory. -- Matthias
On Dec 23, 2013, at 4:09 PM, Manfred Lotz wrote:
> I had a look into collects/racket/privat
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:44:03 -0500
Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Sadly, I think you may have to re-implement in-directory (with a
> recursive traversal like the one in for.rkt) but use
> file-or-directory-permission before you try to go into a
> subdirectory. -- Matthias
>
>
>
Yep, I did it
On Dec 23, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Manfred Lotz wrote:
> I think in-directory should be fixed in the long run.
Agreed. -- Matthias
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
Perhaps in-directory can take an optional parameter that controls whether
or not to recur?
Robby
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Dec 23, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Manfred Lotz wrote:
>
> > I think in-directory should be fixed in the long run.
>
> Agreed. -- Matthias
>
If you don't have permissions, you can't recur and the current implementation
throws an error w/o recourse to a fix. As Manfred points out, this is a 'fair
weather' function. A real implementation should resist such external mishaps.
But I also agree w/ you about the parameter. It would general
I don't think the proposed fix would "resist" in this manner. The directory
could be deleted between the time you check for its existence and when you
ask for its contents.
Robby
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> If you don't have permissions, you can't recur and th
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:51:16 -0600
Robby Findler
wrote:
> I don't think the proposed fix would "resist" in this manner. The
> directory could be deleted between the time you check for its
> existence and when you ask for its contents.
>
I would differentiate between static and dynamic errors.
14 matches
Mail list logo
