> On Jul 17, 2019, at 12:16 AM, Kevin Forchione wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> Is there any function in Racket that will return a symbol representation of a
> value’s datatype? We can interrogate them with predicates, but it occurs to
> me that this information must be carried in the object’s syntax
Hi guys,
Is there any function in Racket that will return a symbol representation of a
value’s datatype? We can interrogate them with predicates, but it occurs to me
that this information must be carried in the object’s syntax somewhere…
otherwise the syntax->datum wouldn’t work. Of course I
Matthew Flatt writes:
> The idea that the Racket project leadership is discussing this is
> entirely plausible, of course, given the way things have operated in
> the past. Let me emphasize again, however, that you should take Aaron
> Turon's keynote as evidence that we do not want to do things
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:08:05PM -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> p.p.p.s or whatever level of "p" I'm on:
>
> The core team including Matthew have put decades of work into Racket.
> The effort and dedication is amazing. So if Matthew wanted to decree
> that he's been working on this a quarter
At Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:55:03 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> The stated purpose of this change was to increase Racket's popularity.
The purpose I personally stated was to remove an obstacle to Racket
ideas. It's perhaps fair to characterize that as "increase Racket's
popularity", but I'd like to
p.p.p.s or whatever level of "p" I'm on:
The core team including Matthew have put decades of work into Racket.
The effort and dedication is amazing. So if Matthew wanted to decree
that he's been working on this a quarter century and just wants to
change surface syntax, next, dammit? I would have
The stated purpose of this change was to increase Racket's popularity.
Someone asked, if Racket were already more popular, would this proposal
be made? The answer was, probably not.
It seems we're jumping over some questions:
1. More popular, among who?
[About "research language": Is it
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 15:32, rocketnia wrote:
>
> I find it worrying that racket2 would be kicked off with infix syntax
> (something which I think of as an unnecessary sticking point in the way of
> prospective macro writers and language designers, and hence a move *toward*
> elitism *as
Thanks for reminding me of
https://github.com/racket/racket/wiki/Racket2
As it is mostly quite old, I’ve updated it with a link back to the RFC’s
repository.
Kind regards
Stephen
PS see you in London on Friday ;)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote:
> I always imagined
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 11:46:16 AM UTC-7, gustavo wrote:
>
> I always imagined racket2 as racket with a few minor backward incompatible
> changes, for example make `length` generic, drop `struct`, remove
> guarantees about freshness of results. I.E. Most of
>
I always imagined racket2 as racket with a few minor backward incompatible
changes, for example make `length` generic, drop `struct`, remove
guarantees about freshness of results. I.E. Most of
https://github.com/racket/racket/wiki/Racket2 I also don't like that
`syntax-property` is used to get
David Storrs writes:
> The list is named racket-users, so the question of "who do we want as
> Racket users?" seems pretty on-point to me. Still, I get how it might not
> interest everyone. Maybe just mute this thread?
It's not so much this thread as future threads that are likely to
arrive,
More answers:
On 7/15/19, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> (1) How does scribble handle mathematical notation? Presumably there's a
> hack
> for when I'm generating TeX, but is there anything reasonable when
> generating
> HTML? Mathjax is somewhat tolerable, but mathML would be nice.
For TeX, I tell
Update:
I've narrowed down the problem to the `copy` method of the snip. When I
delete the copy method, I can see the snip perfectly, but it can't be
resized (because no copy method implemented).
I removed the GL component, so now I'm only attempting to extend the
image-snip% class to resize
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 3:38:22 PM UTC-6, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> (2) How can I produce category-theoretical diagrams, such as the one on
> top of
> page 29 in section 3.7 in the pdf file
> https://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/GentleIntro.pdf
> Oh yes, category theorists also use
Matthew Butterick may be able to jump in here and answer better than I can
but you might want to look at Pollen https://docs.racket-lang.org/pollen/ and
language that he built on top of Scribble for publishing both on the webs
and in print
I am not sure about the speed since Pollen relies on
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 5:31 AM Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
> Sam,
>
> > Matthias, I disagree with this. First, we all believe that the Racket
> > community is one of the most important parts of Racket. Given that,
> > how to make it the community we want it to be, and how to welcome as
> > many new
Good idea. I might come between 12pm and 1pm.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:36 PM zeRusski wrote:
> argh, wish you'd go with after work hours or the weekend. Sorry, won't be
> able to make it.
>
> On Friday, 12 July 2019 09:20:58 UTC-6, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Next Friday, 19
I second that.
Even having done the school for a second time in as many years I still
learned a lot and thoroughly enjoyed my week in Salt Lake City immensely!
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:44 AM Brian Adkins wrote:
> A sincere "thank you" to everyone who was involved in creating Racket Week
>
Sam,
Matthias, I disagree with this. First, we all believe that the Racket
community is one of the most important parts of Racket. Given that,
how to make it the community we want it to be, and how to welcome as
many new people to our community as possible, are fundamental to what
we discuss
I thought I'd add my two cents here, as someone who's been using a mixed-syntax
Lisp[*] daily for 15 years now. I've been working with electrical engineers,
who aren't programmers, but obviously have a strong technical background.
Traditional algebraic notation for math (what Matthew noted as
I'm not sure if I'm the best one to answer these, but here are my attempts.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 4:38 PM Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of trying Scribble again now that I have a new computer.
> I found it unacceptably slow years ago when I tried it on a 80,000 word novel.
> I now,
22 matches
Mail list logo
