Re: [racket-users] Mixin questions

2016-08-12 Thread Normal Loone
How do I call the methodes of each mixin? When I tried something like (define/public ...) the other mixins could not access these. Am Donnerstag, 11. August 2016 20:19:02 UTC+2 schrieb Robby Findler: > Although, with these two particular interfaces, there is no single > class that implements bot

Re: [racket-users] Mixin questions

2016-08-12 Thread Matthias Felleisen
You may want to scan this little write-up on first-class classes and mixins: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Thoughts/Programming_with_Class_in_Racket.html I intended to push into the docs at some point, but we dropped the ball on it. > On Aug 12, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Normal Loone wr

[racket-users] Problems with modules and with raco

2016-08-12 Thread rumpz
app.rkt: #lang racket (require "words.rkt" web-server/servlet) words.rkt: #lang racket (require racket/serialize) (provide (struct-out word) save-words load-words decline) (serializable-struct word (type ecc.)) (define-namespace-anchor a) (define ns (namespace-anchor->name

Re: [racket-users] Re: Time of hash-ref when the key is (not) found

2016-08-12 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
I think it's something more subtle. With this definitions: (define long-assoc (for/list ([i (in-range 64 (+ 64 1024))]) (cons i #t))) (define hash0 (make-immutable-hash (cons '(0 . #t) long-assoc))) (define hash1 (make-immutable-hash (cons '(1 . #t) long-assoc))) With 5 r

Re: [racket-users] Re: Time of hash-ref when the key is (not) found

2016-08-12 Thread Matthew Flatt
That still seems consistent with Alex's explanation. To test Alex's explanation, I think you need a hash table with a key whose hash code matches the one for the value you check, but where the key is not equal that value. Here's a variant of your code with a `bignum` and `char` that have the same

Re: [racket-users] Re: Time of hash-ref when the key is (not) found

2016-08-12 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
Ok. To reproduce the results I have to use: (define char (integer->char 37932)) Thank to both. Gustavo On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > That still seems consistent with Alex's explanation. To test Alex's > explanation, I think you need a hash table with a key whose has