p #xFF 1 _grpc-slice/ffi)))
(grpc-slice p))
(define s (make-grpc-slice))
(grpc-slice-length s)
(grpc-slice-length (begin0 s (set! s #f)))
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
> Parsing it out in atomic mode probably will work, I'll look at that. The
> callback me
es?
>
> If not, then I don't have a better idea than the approach you describe.
> I don't quite follow why you'd need new functionality from wills, since
> a will procedure on a cpointer already receives the cpointer back when
> there are otherwise no references to th
I'm dealing with some foreign apis that want to be passed long lived output
pointers to structs. The apis eventually call back indicating that the
struct has been filled in appropriately and then I want to read out the
values and deallocate the structs. I'm using atomic interior memory for
these st
George: I don't see that invariant for java in anything that I search for
on Java finalizers. Do you have a reference? In particular java only has
one finalizer per object (the finalize method) and across objects the
references I found seem to imply that there is no guaranteed order?
https://en.wi
I'm trying to write some racket code which interfaces with a foreign
library and provides a safe interface. Some of the functions I'm calling
allocate memory and need to have this explicitly freed by the caller. The
'allocator' binding from ffi/unsafe/alloc seems to solve this problem, but
I'm runn
I have been downloading racket in my continuous builds for a while from
http://mirror.racket-lang.org/installers/6.6/racket-minimal-6.6-x86_64-macosx.tgz
but today it stopped working. Is this just a transient error with the
server or should I change my urls? I noticed that the new urls on the pag
I'm seeing slow expansion (on the order of hundreds of milliseconds) for
the following program:
https://gist.github.com/endobson/e165edf224b4028db48d
It is a single function of generated code. Similar functions that don't use
match as extensively are much faster < 10 milliseconds.
I'm trying to u
That seems to be defined as _uintptr which could be different than 'size_t'
in C, but is probably a better choice than '_int64'.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Marc Burns wrote:
> What about _size in ffi/unsafe ?
>
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Eric Dobson
I'm currently on working on bindings to a foreign library that has elements
in structs that are defined as time_t and size_t. I couldn't find anything
in the core ffi types that corresponded to these, so currently I am using
int64_t as that was what I found was correct for the system I'm currently
For an example match does this:
https://github.com/plt/racket/blob/master/racket/collects/racket/match/gen-match.rkt#L36
Added in this commit
https://github.com/plt/racket/commit/fc8ed9772a701062dff2b928fb99d90e01b7f177
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Syntax object const
I wrote something similar for my LLVM bindings, after running into many
issues with Dave's code. It follows the c spec not c++, and doesn't support
gcc extensions which many libaries use.
It is no where near production quality, but may give you a starting point:
https://github.com/shekari/racket-l
I'm trying to figure out how to reliably kill a place silently. The current
code I have starts up a place and nearly immediately sets a break handler
that quietly exits, the issue is that there is a fairly long gap where the
place is started and still doing import resolution. If the place revieves
eue() on FIFOs only in June. I'll disable it
> again.
>
> At Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:06:54 -0700, Eric Dobson wrote:
>> I'm attempting to use FIFOs as a simple IPC mechanism and I'm getting
>> into a deadlock. I've simplified my program to the following and am
I'm attempting to use FIFOs as a simple IPC mechanism and I'm getting
into a deadlock. I've simplified my program to the following and am
still getting deadlocks. I believe that this shouldn't have an issues,
but I might be wrong about that. Am I doing something wrong, or might
this be a bug in the
} CXString;
>
> If that's right, I'm a little surprised that `cursor-spelling` works
> --- but when you get representation wrong, strange things can happen,
> including something working when it shouldn't.
>
> Am I looking at the right library/definitions?
>
> At
I'm trying to debug an FFI crash that I'm seeing, and because it is
dealing with C code the error just presents as a segfault. I believe I
have tracked down what is causing the problem, but don't understand
how it could be doing so.
I have two racket functions which take a "cursor" (the foreign
li
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2014-09-15 18:57:51 -0700, Matthew Butterick wrote:
>> Mike Bostock's visual demonstration of why naive sorting functions are false
>> friends. As he and Henglein point out, transitivity of the comparator is
>> essential.
>>
>> http://bos
The issue with random testing is that it can only catch for bugs in
programs that can be generated. We currently have a small set of
primitives as allowed functions, and they are only numeric ones. Thus
we cannot currently generate programs with lists which would be
required for adding range. This
What should the following program return?
#lang racket
(syntax? (cdr (syntax-e #'(2 . ()
If I just run the program with 'racket' I get #t. If I compile it with
'raco make' and run it again I get #f.
I'm trying to figure out how to type this in TR, and thought I fully
understood how pairs and
Vincent: exact-zero? is defined through 'make-predicate' which uses
contract machinery to generate the function. I filed a couple of bugs
tracking some of the slowness issues. There is no `contract` form
though so I doubt that the coach will find it.
http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view%20a
I took a look and for a while nothing I did sped it up, (likely
already racket was doing the optimizations I was doing by hand). But I
got a factor of 4 speed up on the vector code over the hash code by
not checking for exact 0, but instead using #f as the sentinal value.
Growing the vector by a a
I added gen:equal+hash to a struct type and noticed that accessing
fields of the struct got slower, even though I never used equal? or
hash functions. Is this expected? And if so what is the cause of it?
#lang racket
(struct foo (x) #:transparent)
(struct bar (x) #:transparent
#:methods g
This should now be fixed at HEAD.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Greg Hendershott
wrote:
> Thanks, Neil and Alexander!
>
> (At one point I actually did try `list` instead of `vector`, but that
> uncovered an additional typecheck problem that I conflated with this.
> All set now.)
>
I know what the bug is and it should be pretty simple to fix, but
please file a bug for tracking purposes.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> This is one case in which Typed Racket could do better inference. I'm not
> sure what the difference is between Listof and Sequenceof t
oring my filters, then
> shouldn’t (-> Any Boolean : Type) be a subtype of (-> Any Boolean)?
>
> On May 11, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
> wrote:
>
>
> On May 11, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>
> The issue is that there is a temporary variable t
ds to be done to fix it.
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
>
> On May 11, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>
> The issue is that there is a temporary variable that has the same
> value as x and TR cannot see that they point to the same location.
> Y
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
> It seems like case doesn’t do occurrence typing, when it seems like it would
> be easiest for case, because of singleton types.
> For example:
> #lang typed/racket
>
> (define (f x)
> (case x
> [(thing) (g x)]
> ))
>
> (: g ('
Where is the time spent in the algorithm? I assume that most of it is
in the matrix manipulation work not the orchestration of finding a
pivot and reducing based on that. I.e. `elim-rows!` is the expensive
part. Given that you only specialized the outer part of the loop, I
wouldn't expect huge perf
Where are you seeing the slowness in that code? For me the majority of
the time is spent in matrix-solve, and since that is another module it
doesn't matter what you write your module in.
In untyped racket, (set the first line to #lang
typed/racket/no-check), it is much slower. 36 seconds to creat
ith-length-1?))
> And it gave me this error:
> . Type Checker: parse error in type;
> expected a predicate for argument to Refinement
> given: Nothing in: (Refinement string-with-length-1?)
> Even though I declared that string-with-length-1? has the type (Any ->
> Boolean : #:+
The point of Opaque types are that they are opaque and you cannot see
into them. Thus making them subtypes is against what they are supposed
to do.
You want Refinement types which are similar, but get you subtyping.
They are unsound, and thus are still in experimental. The unsoundness
is very hard
I have been working on fixing the feature that does the checking if a
certain type meets the expectations, and there are tons of bugs in it
for the edge cases. I'm guessing you are just triggering one of those
right now, so I would file a bug.
In terms of docs, they were just added and so are visi
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Alexander D. Knauth
wrote:
> I’m trying to make a multiplication function that can take either all
> numbers or all numbers and one vector, and have it not matter what order
> they come in. To do this, I’m using match with list-no-order:
> #lang typed/racket
>
>
The following annotation makes it work for me.
#lang typed/racket
(require plot/typed plot/typed/utils)
(: vsum ((Listof (Vectorof Real)) -> (Vectorof Real)))
(define (vsum vs)
(apply (ann vector-map (-> (-> Real * Real) (Vectorof Real) *
(Vectorof Real))) + vs))
I'm not sure why apply is g
Does this do what you want? (Note its untested.)
(define-syntax-rule (ref name ...)
(begin
(define name (void)) ...))
Using define-values is tricky as you saw, because you need to refer to
name in the body to get the right duplication but then not use it.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:23 PM,
This is likely a bug, but I cannot reproduce using the following
program. Do you have a small test case?
#lang racket/load
(module typed typed/racket
(provide foo)
(: foo (Number -> Number))
(define (foo x) (add1 x)))
(module untyped racket
(require 'typed)
(foo 4))
(require 'untyped)
A B) ((A -> B) -> (A -> B))), which I can't
> check for with a predicate as far as I know.
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Eric Dobson
> wrote:
>>
>> That is definitely a bug, not sure exactly what is going wrong though.
>> Can you file a bug for t
That is definitely a bug, not sure exactly what is going wrong though.
Can you file a bug for this?
In terms of getting your program to run, if you replace '(not
(parameter? p))' with 'number?' it should work.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Spencer Florence wrote:
> I'm having difficulty gett
I'm not sure what you mean by random, but does gensym do what you want?
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/symbols.html?q=gensym#%28def._%28%28quote._~23~25kernel%29._gensym%29%29
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Marco Morazan wrote:
> Is there a built-in function to generate (random) symbol
add a trigger.
>
> At Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:53:04 -0800, Eric Dobson wrote:
>> Is there a way to determine if a place channel is unreachable? My
>> experiments with will executors seem to show that they trigger even if
>> the place channel is reachable from another place. Is ther
Is there a way to determine if a place channel is unreachable? My
experiments with will executors seem to show that they trigger even if
the place channel is reachable from another place. Is there a way to
determine that all other places don't have access to the value, I
assume that it has to be po
rning
> a boolean to indicate success.
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:24 PM, David T. Pierson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:23:42PM -0800, Eric Dobson wrote:
>> > I'm trying to make a custom output port that is backed by a
>> > a
I'm trying to understand why my compiles are as slow as they are and
see if there are any easy gains to make them faster.
If I just want a serial compile then I can use 'managed-compile-zo'
and look at the compile/cm logger to get information.
But if I want to do a parallel compile, then the mana
I'm trying to make a custom output port that is backed by a
async-channel. One of the operations that ports need to provide is an
event that is ready when progress on the event can be made. But since
I cannot tell if the async-channel is full and put would not block
without actually sending a value
The documention for the commandline racket implies that the following
two command lines should have the same behavior.
racket -v -e "(read-eval-print-loop)"
racket -i -q
But on my machine I'm seeing different behavior with regards to
terminal settings. Without interactive mode I don't get the ech
I know about the macro stepper and it doesn't work for my use case. I
don't have a simple macro, I have the entire TR typechecker/optimizer.
Thus splitting it out into its own module is not feasible. Also
because of how TR works there is one major macro application and the
macro stepper cannot see
I use raco expand a bunch when debugging macros to see the final
output and see why it doesn't match up with my expectations. One issue
I have is that the pretty printer decides to only use 80ish columns
when my terminal is 200 wide, this makes the output really ugly and
hard to read. If this was a
I'm trying to clean up the output of some test cases so they are
easier to debug when the go wrong. One of the issues is that the
rackunit text ui always wants to print the stack trace of check
failures. I never find these useful since they just show frames of the
test code, not the code under test
eisen
wrote:
>
> Lift the module definition to top and require in the expression position?
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>
>> I want to write a macro which generates submodules and then possibly
>> requires them. This is so that can easily u
I want to write a macro which generates submodules and then possibly
requires them. This is so that can easily use another language (TR)
for the expression.
If all uses of the macro are at the top-level/module-level this is
easy and I can expand out to something like:
(begin
(module new-mod type
Currently we do not have a safe way of checking #:property options in
TR, so writing the struct in R and requiring it is the only solution
right now.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Daniele Capo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in a personal project I'm working on I've some structure that has to be
> printe
2013-08-07 08:42:53 -0700, Eric Dobson wrote:
>> What is (posn X Y)? If you mean the obvious (struct/c posn X Y) you
>> will run into issues with the fact that posn is immutable and
>> therefore the contracts on its fields need to be flat or chaperone
>> contracts, and param
:
> On 2013-08-07 08:18:41 -0700, Eric Dobson wrote:
>> Ok, now I'm not so sure it is possible. Can you give what you think
>> the contracts should be for your posn example? The issue that I see is
>> that the parametricity is shared across different functions and I
at 6:13 AM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2013-08-06 21:53:14 -0700, Eric Dobson wrote:
>> I'm assuming you mean parametric contracts instead of polymorphic. But
>> not sure why those would be the correct solution, I think any/c would
>> work, I'm not seeing a case where wra
I'm assuming you mean parametric contracts instead of polymorphic. But
not sure why those would be the correct solution, I think any/c would
work, I'm not seeing a case where wrapping the value would protect
anything.
I don't see a fundamental limitation to doing this either.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013
I don't think expanding into a define and a define-for-syntax will
work. If I understand Nick correctly then Arc doesn't have phases and
state should be shared across the uses in macros and uses in the
program. I.e.
(define cdr/only-once
(let ((state #f))
(lambda (list)
(if state
I'm trying to improve the error messages for some macros and it seems
like in some cases syntax-parse cannot give a good error message and
just returns "bad syntax". The main issue I'm dealing with is when the
use does not have as many subforms as the macro requires. I think I
understand why it is
x27;(a b c d e f g)
endobson@yggdrasil () ~/proj/racket/plt % raco make ~/tmp/tmp.rkt (0)
c
d
e
f
g
a
b
What does the syntax-parse API guarantee about this?
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Eric Dobson wrote:
> I'm seeing something which looks like on different runs of my program
> diffe
ce a small test case.
The basic code is that #'(op.unsafe e1.opt e2.opt) seems to force
e1.opt first sometimes and sometimes e2.opt is forced first. Could
this be a hash iteration order issue in the internals of syntax/parse?
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
> I started
All I've done now is turn
> some error cases into non-error cases.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
> On 06/01/2013 11:55 AM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>>
>> I would say not to implement this just on my behalf. I think it would
>> be weird for pattern variables to act differently if
wrote:
> This might answer some of your questions:
> http://macrologist.blogspot.com/2011/09/syntax-parse-and-literals.html
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
> On 05/31/2013 02:30 AM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>>
>> Ok given the complexities of literal-sets and hygiene, I think I will
&g
I would say not to implement this just on my behalf. I think it would
be weird for pattern variables to act differently if they came from
syntax-parse versus from with-syntax.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>>
> rhs ...) ...)
>
> This way you can make the attributes promises (at compile time) to later
> force when using them in rhs ...
>
> Too much?
> -Ian
> - Original Message -
> From: "Eric Dobson"
> To: "Matthias Felleisen"
> Cc: users@racket
27;(complicated (form e.v)))
>
> where force-all is defined via a begin in the slow syntax class?
>
> -- Matthias
>
>
> On May 31, 2013, at 2:47 AM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>
>> I'm working on code (TR optimizer) that needs to match some
>> expressions and then com
I'm working on code (TR optimizer) that needs to match some
expressions and then compute an attribute based on the expression. I
would like to abstract this out as a syntax class. Example is below:
#lang racket
(require syntax/parse)
(define-syntax-class slow
(pattern e:expr
#:with v
t 9:43 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Eric Dobson
> wrote:
>>
>> Why do literal-sets have to be unhygienic? I expected them to work
>> like literal lists which you say are hygienic. Also literal-sets are
>> not documented as b
its unhygienic I'm
not so sure now.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 05/29/2013 03:30 AM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>>
>> I was writing a macro that generated a literal-set and ran into some
>> confusing behavior which I have distilled to the foll
I was writing a macro that generated a literal-set and ran into some
confusing behavior which I have distilled to the following program.
#lang racket
(require syntax/parse
(for-syntax syntax/parse))
(define-syntax (define-ls1 stx)
(syntax-parse stx
((_ name:id (lit:id ...))
#
Is it 'wrong' to add a disappeared-use property onto a syntax object
even if the use wasn't actually disappeared? Its not very obvious what
semantics these syntax properties are supposed to have.
The situation I'm in is that the code that determines examines the
bindings is somewhat separate from
Try using make-empty-namespace instead of make-base-empty-namespace.
It won't work but will explain why the add1 procedures are the same
when you do get it to work, with the change below.
(define-namespace-anchor anchor)
(define (get-from-fresh-namespace var)
(let ((namespace (make-empty-namespa
No, you cannot define predicates for function types. If you explain
the problem you have, we might be able to explain another solution
that will work.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Paul Leger wrote:
> Hi all,
> Maybe, this question is very easy. In the following code, I try
> defining a
That definitely looks like a bug. Can you file one either using the
bug report tool in the menus or at bugs.racket-lang.org.
No you cannot define a predicate like that, because you cannot tell a
functions type with a first order check. But you can use cast, so
(cast (Boolean -> Boolean)) should w
Couldn't this be solved by protecting the struct on export?
#lang racket/load
(module foo racket
(struct foo (f) #:prefab)
(define x (foo (lambda (x) (* 3.3 x
(provide/contract
(x (struct/c foo (-> number? number?)
(module bar racket
(require 'foo)
(struct foo (f) #:prefab)
((
> output for that keyword.
> You could also trust that syntax-parse will parse your dotted ~or in order
> and have ~do forms that populate a data structure via mutation and bump up a
> counter each time.
>
> -Ian
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Eric Dobson"
I'm trying to improve the struct: form in TR, and one of the things I
need to do is match a sequence of keyworded expressions, add
annotations on the expressions, and then put them back into the same
order.
I can either do a large ~or clause and have optional constraints on
each clause, but If I d
I believe this is the issue that the the check is trying to prevent.
Sam, can you explain how the indirection is supposed to solve this?
What is currently happening is we ask:
(subtype (Deep Number) (Deep Any)), which computes
(subtype (Indirect (List Number)) (Indirect (List Any))), which then c
Sam: Currently all the fail tests for TR pass if this check is
removed, can you add one that exposes the issues around subtyping?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Anthony Carrico wrote:
> On 04/11/2013 09:26 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> This is indeed something we've run into before. See sec
one does not. I
understand why this works in the implementation, but don't know the
theoretical reason why the implementation prevents it, since Indirect
and Deep should be isomorphic.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
> Quick answer is to replace
> (define-type (Finge
Quick answer is to replace
(define-type (Fingertree a) (U Empty (Single a) (Deep a)))
With
(struct: (a) Fingertree ((v : (U Empty (Single a) (Deep a)
Still looking into understanding what is going on, but I believe you
will need to introduce a Rec somewhere to get it how you want.
On Wed, Apr
You want ~once. See
http://docs.racket-lang.org/syntax/stxparse-patterns.html?q=syntax-parse#%28form._%28%28lib._syntax%2Fparse..rkt%29._~7eonce%29%29
and
http://docs.racket-lang.org/syntax/More_Keyword_Arguments.html?q=syntax-parse.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Scott Klarenbach wrote:
> Hi t
This is already fixed at HEAD,
https://github.com/plt/racket/commit/1334e8dcc77854ac826306d3f6a36150cb0bf0c1
has the fix.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Andrey Larionov wrote:
>> Hello, Racket community.
>> I'm a newbie and just star
hase 1.
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>>
>> The issue with that is that it runs the code (compute) at phase1, when
>> I need to run that code at phase 0, otherwise compiling the module
>> runs the tests. I'm willing
Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 04/07/2013 01:24 AM, Eric Dobson wrote:
>>
>> I am trying to test a helper to a macro. It generates a syntax object
>> with bindings at phase-1, this is then returned by the macro and it
>> correctly evaluates. Is there a way to not go through
I am trying to test a helper to a macro. It generates a syntax object
with bindings at phase-1, this is then returned by the macro and it
correctly evaluates. Is there a way to not go through the macro, but
still evaluate the syntax-object with those bindings it has at phase-1
relative to the helpe
Write a C wrapper. Thats what llvm does, and how my racket bindings use it.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Vehm Stark wrote:
> This was discussed on the PLT Scheme list back in 2006 but I wonder if
> anyone has any new advice for doing FFI with a C++ library.
>
> Racket Us
rkt
> I would really love to see this functionality as a command line option to
> the console racket
>
> Tobias
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:31:51 +0100, Eric Dobson
> wrote:
>
>> So anyone who just uses the command line tools is out of luck? I like
>&g
wrote:
> Or use DrRacket and turn on the auto compilation feature. Or set up
> compiler/cm yourself to do that.
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Eric Dobson
> wrote:
>>
>> That doesn't explain why I can get the same behavior as the macro w
ore
> recompiles a.rkt AND b.rkt.
>
> Version 3 should as far as i understand never differ, assumed raco make
> works.
>
> Tobias
>
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:23:24 +0100, Eric Dobson
> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to understand what are the guarantees t
I'm trying to understand what are the guarantees that raco make is
meant to provide. I'm going to limit this to simple programs, no fancy
dynamic requires, or trying to trick the compiler.
In the following scenario:
1. Edit files
2. run 'raco make '
3. Change files
I expect all of these to have th
It looks like these get turned into collects paths automatically (for
paths in collects dir), and other modules that are required normally
have the complete path already in deps and this is no different. So
cm-accomplice will solve my issue.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Eric Dobson wrote
I have two files a.rkt and b.rkt, a.rkt dynamically requires b.rkt at
syntax time.
a.rkt:
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax compiler/cm-accomplice))
(define-syntax (go stx)
(dynamic-require "b.rkt" #f)
#''success)
(go)
b.rkt:
#lang racket
(when #f
(error 'this-might-break))
If I compile
The docs say that it is round to even, which is the standard for
floating point numbers [1]. You can write your own rounding operator
that rounds .5 up if need be.
;; Untested
(define (my-round n)
(let ((r (round n))) (if (= .5 (- n r)) (add1 r) r)))
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding#Ro
Why cannot that contract be checked? It seems that since the or/c is
the unwrapping of the parametric contracts it should be possible,
since the first order checks should differentiate them.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2013-03-12 13:16:02 -0700, Danny Yoo wrote:
>>
I cannot speak for the other TR devs but this is nowhere on my radar,
I'm currently dealing with all the open bugs (and there are a lot of
these).
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Ray Racine wrote:
> The possibility(s) of TR support for Generics is salivating. Any current
> activity in this direc
Racket's thread cells are local to 'Racket Threads', so I doubt that they
map to OS level thread local storage, and thus would work fine.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 02/25/2013 06:17 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
>> At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:30:18 +0100, Juan Francisco Ca
Its the same reason that this program gives an error.
#lang racket
(define/contract (f x)
(my-struct? . -> . number?)
1)
(struct my-struct ())
(f (my-struct))
Do you expect this to work?
We could replace uses of my-struct? with (lambda (x) (my-struct? x)) but I
wonder if the optimizer wil
et it works.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Eric Dobson
> wrote:
> > I'm trying to understand why TR requires a module that it doesn't
> actually
> > use in the file that requires it.
> >
I'm trying to understand why TR requires a module that it doesn't actually
use in the file that requires it.
The requirement is unstable/contract in typed-racket/type-racket.rkt.
Without it tests/typed-racket/succeed/succed-cnt.rkt fails. But when I try
to reduce the test case to not use TR, I can
I don't get why TR should use a custom contract instead of case-> providing
better error messages.
You get the same error message with:
#lang racket
(define/contract (f) (case->) 2)
(f 2)
;(f)
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Asumu Taki
I am playing around with futures currently, and am trying to understand how
to make my programs faster. The future visualizer is wonderful in
understanding whats going on, but it lead me down a track which made my
program slower.
The issue is that void primitive needs to synchronize with the main
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
