As Greg explained, the named let form simplifies the interface to other code.
It is much more common in practice.
> On Sep 6, 2014, at 23:50, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>
> Well, I think you answer your own question with good reasons in the
> last paragraph. :)
>
> If `acc` is an implementation d
Well, I think you answer your own question with good reasons in the
last paragraph. :)
If `acc` is an implementation detail, let's not expose it as a parameter.[1]
At least, let's not do this for a function provided by a module.
Especially not a function with a contract and/or documentation.
But
I am working with git head. -- Matthias
On Sep 6, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote:
> On 09/06/2014 02:00 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>
>> p.s. I have figured out the syntax. I am not sure what you want with
>> 'loop' but in any case, this all type checks.
>
> It is just a very de
On 09/06/2014 02:00 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
p.s. I have figured out the syntax. I am not sure what you want with
'loop' but in any case, this all type checks.
It is just a very degenerate case of my problems, with everything else
gone, an infinite loop nested in the most basic polymorph
Hendrik Boom wrote at 09/06/2014 08:56 PM:
I gather that the current gnucash developer(s) have decided that
they would like to distance themselves from guile. But it is still
alive and well as its report generator.
I was using Guile back when GnuCash was being developed in it. Guile
seemed li
Hi guys,
Which is preferable?
(define (foo let … (acc empty)) … (foo (rest let) ... (cons …. acc))
or
(define (foo lst ...) (let loop ([lst lst] …[acc empty]) … (loop (rest let) …
(cons …. acc)))
On the one hand we eliminate the named let construct, but on the other hand we
expose the acc i
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 08:34:00PM -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> What all have people done with using Racket with GnuCash?
Racket I don't know. But the scripting language for gnucash, from
the very beginning ages ago was guile, whch is a dialect of Scheme.
In fact, at one time gnucash was a gui
What all have people done with using Racket with GnuCash?
I know that John B. Clements wrote a package for doing reports from the
".gnucash" file.
(My immediate motivation is that I'd like to be able to use my
"html-template" Racket package to do reports that are integrated into
the GnuCash
Thanks to everyone. It's much clearer now.
I tried to get the same output anyway. This is the closest I could
get. The example involves a little of "cheating", because the add-cm-x
function actually never return in the traditional sense, but it use
call/cc and abort/cc to get the same effect.
Per
This type checks fine in v6.1 though I can't read the dang syntax and I thought
I was someone who should be able to do just that :-)
On Sep 6, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote:
> Even something like this won't type check:
>
> (define #:∀ (V) (fn (r : V)) : V
> (define (loop) : Void (l
p.s. I have figured out the syntax. I am not sure what you want with 'loop' but
in any case, this all type checks.
On Sep 6, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> This type checks fine in v6.1 though I can't read the dang syntax and I
> thought I was someone who should be able to
Even something like this won't type check:
(define #:∀ (V) (fn (r : V)) : V
(define (loop) : Void (loop))
r)
So all that stuff about cps-ish code may be irrelevant.
--
Anthony Carrico
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Racket Users list:
http://
2014-09-06 16:36 GMT+02:00 Gustavo Massaccesi :
> I'm trying to understand continuations marks.
The second chapter of Johns dissertation
"Portable and high-level access to the stack with Continuation Marks"
gives a nice introduction.
http://www.brinckerhoff.org/clements/papers/dissertation.pd
The 'preserves-marks flag makes sense only in the context of the JIT's
implementation.
At the Racket level, there's no way to write a function `f` so that
(with-continuation-mark
'x
'my-value
(begin
(f)
(continuation-mark-set-first #f 'x)))
produces anything other than 'my-value. Ev
On Sep 5, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote:
> I'm trying to add a continuation mark inside a function, but I want
> that the new mark to be visible after the functions returns. (Mostly
> for curiosity, not an actual problem.)
>
> I want something like this:
>
> ;--
> #lang racket/bas
I agree that to get this output, using continuation marks is a bad
idea. It'd be much better to use a parameter (or set!ing a global
variable at a last resort).
I'm trying to understand continuations marks. I'm reading some parts
of the Racket compiler, and internally the functions have some flags
16 matches
Mail list logo
