On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-4, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>
> Robby, I'm still not certain we all have a shared understanding of some
> of the concerns and where we all stand, so please let me try to get at
> that some of that:
>
> > As for adopting-new-syntax vs
Thanks everyone! I'm gonna have a closer look at those. What I ended up
doing was something like this:
(struct Wrapper (exp arg) #:mutable)
(define-syntax-rule (define-wrapper name exp)
((define name (Wrapper (delay exp) #f)))
(define (Wrapper->fn w)
(lambda (arg)
(if (Wrapper->arg w)
+ use the `raco-commands` key in "info.rkt" to create new `raco myprog ···`
commands
+ use `racket/cmdline` to parse the input options to these commands.
> On 12 Aug 19, at 7:34 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
>
> With C, everyone is happy with macros and built-in options, e. g.
>
> gcc -O3
Ah, that makes sense. I guess I didn't realize (or took for granted) that
`raco pkg new` was doing all that. With that in mind, it certainly does
make more sense to run `raco pkg new` locally.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
Points well taken, Neil. My messages were probably better unsent.
Robby
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:50 AM Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>
> Robby, I'm still not certain we all have a shared understanding of some
> of the concerns and where we all stand, so please let me try to get at
> that some of that:
Hi,
I've been thinking about small things that can be done to lower the
barriers to entry to the racket community, and I've come up with some
ideas!
1. Adopts the standard GitHub set of issue labels* for all active
repositories, only deviating where necessary.
Benefit - This would allow
Robby, I'm still not certain we all have a shared understanding of some
of the concerns and where we all stand, so please let me try to get at
that some of that:
As for adopting-new-syntax vs backwards-compatibility, does it help if I were to tell you
that anything new will always be "opt
Hello,
I posted this question once, nobody answered, this is a second try.
I believe there should be a solution because the problem seems rather common.
See, I have a DSL compiler implemented in Racket as a #lang, syntax-parse etc.
Like most compilers, it can emit somewhat diifferent code from
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:49:30 -0500,
Robby Findler wrote:
>
> There are piles of lecture notes (in the form of slide presentations
> written in Racket) from the late 90s (so not in any continuous
> integration system anywhere, as far as I know) that still run fine in
> today's Racket for example.
Sounds like you're going to take a wait-and-see attitude, which sounds
wise to me, but you are also welcome to participate in the discussion!
As for adopting-new-syntax vs backwards-compatibility, does it help if
I were to tell you that anything new will always be "opt in", in the
sense that
Thank you for your answer. I wait then to see.
>Honu
Yes, documentation is really lacking.
воскресенье, 11 августа 2019 г., 23:19:06 UTC+3 пользователь Neil Van Dyke
написал:
>
> Atlas, I get the impression, from the impassioned discussion thus far,
> that a lot of the community really wants
My question was not about backwards compatibility, but about adopting new
default syntax.
For me it is as good as dropping s-expressions because only default\main
syntax is what really mater for me.
Sorry for not expressing myself clearly enough.
воскресенье, 11 августа 2019 г., 21:47:20 UTC+3
12 matches
Mail list logo
