I see, I've tried `raco demod` and I am pretty happy with it.
Thanks for answering.
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 3:31:01 PM UTC+2, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Restricting imports in that way is unlikely to reduce memory
> consumption. A module will be loaded if it is transitively required
> from the p
Thanks for the book, I've read the first and started the second edition
recently. It is great.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsu
Hi, I use `(require (only-in aModule aFunction anotherFunction))` a lot to make
use of modules safer, but it also can lead to reduced memory consumption not
loading the module on its entirety? Or this is not the case?
What tools I can use to evaluate this myself on the linux platform?
Thanks in
I have several questions about Racket and DrRacket to ask in the next days. I
have a feeling if I ask them on Stackoverflow.com it can be a minuscule
contribution to its promotion as a language (spreading the word), and I can
accept to receive less answers there.
It can contribute also to the i
I also like to thank you all for the same things (and all the rest).
I see a big future for Racket unfolding more and more everyday.
Lux
> since complaints about bugs are probably more common than compliments about
> smooth experiences, I just wanted to say thank you to whomever design
Thanks, I'm studying units, at this time they do not seems to be particularly
helpful to entangle this mess (seems like more work, not less), but I need to
deepen my understanding... Other suggestions will be appreciated as well, in
the meantime!
> If the issue you're facing is mutual depend
I am sorry, I've not explained well my intents.
My actual situation is like this:
I have a main.rkt file which require the most of all other modules, and it is
the entry point of the application, it provide access to almost all procedures
contained in the required modules.
Modules are abundant in
OFF-TOPIC: I feel like I can do anything, because of this I can not thank you
and all others for your work enough. Just to let you know my feelings and
appreciation.
> +1
>
> I know DrRacket has some downsides, but I sure wish many more people would
> see the light, use it, and help identify
Racket module system is very efficient, but it wont be more efficient in the
particular situation of dozens (and counting...) of highly interdependent
modules, every one containing a big number of functions to just include all in
a single namespace?
I can think of various shortcomings (like missi
I see it is possible to do now, but require some not negligible amount of work,
at least at this time for me... Thanks for the informations.
I will continue to search for an hack on background, nonetheless...
I will let you all know if I find something.
> Ok. Some elements of answer:
> - DrRacket
> Do you mean opening the file from a menu within DrRacket or from the outside,
> like from the command line?
Hi Laurent, thanks for your answer. Yes, I mean from the command line (more
specifically I need it to be launched as a system command, which is almost the
same). I am on Linux but I thi
As much as I love vim/gvim and configured it to do anything I want, I can not
code anymore without DrRacket. Something I miss is the ability to open a file
(in an existing istance) in a tab at specific line number (bonus points if also
column). Tried searching around with no success...
Any idea?
For future reference for who will read this topic:
This announcement on sqlite mailinglist seems to at least partially prove my
point for usefulness of "micro-optimization", something valuable to research
from my point of view.
"""50% faster than 3.7.17"""
"""
This is 50%
faster at the low-lev
> You may be interested in the performance chapter of the guide:
>
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html
Thanks
> You'd be surprised. The Racket byte-compiler and JIT are pretty good.
> We've been porting some primitives from C to Racket and observed some
> speedups. It helps
> You almost never have to worry about the efficiency of (second x) (cadr x)
> and (car (cdr x)). There are always bigger fish to fry than that.
Sure enough, but what if this simple operation is repeated one billion times?
There will be differences? It can be easily measured, by benchmarks/profi
abstractions/helpers (in Racket) based on
them that can be reimplemented easily without requiring libraries like
racket/list in addition lo save memory and load times?
I know readable code is generally better, but how can I save some fractions of
seconds here and there changing my constructs?
Lux
--
You
> Here it is, although some of the things I did like creating objects on a
> dummy panel and then reparenting them seem like they could be bad ideas.
> https://github.com/AlexKnauth/racket-gui-table
Thanks, I've searched something like this for several days, starred. Maybe
would be a good idea a
nt my development efforts (so I can use
it) but in the end I've come up with a custom doc generator due to weird
particular requirements.
Let me organize one ad-hoc "workspace" on my computer to efficiently work on
this subjects and I will try.
Lux
> Absolutely! We would welcome
> If you want to use SCGI instead of FastCGI:
> http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket-scgi/
I am trying with lighttpd. I placed the following example on
/home/lux/served/scgi-test/scgi.rtk:
--
#lang racket
(require (planet neil/sc
explored almost all library of Racket, the
problem seems pervasive and I think I can help.
Sincerely, Lux
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to r
20 matches
Mail list logo