On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Neil Van Dyke
wrote:
> DJ wrote on 02/28/2015 11:49 AM:
>
>> I have spent a half hour searching for info on how to run xslt transforms
>> in racket. All that I can find is a mention that sxml /used to have/ xslt
>> but doesn't any more. I would prefer native rack
Matthew Butterick wrote on 03/01/2015 08:07 PM:
As a still newish user of Racket, I have learned to try it Their Way
before insisting on having it My Way (or looking for other options
farther up the Highway).
Yes, a newbie should usually try doing things the Racket Way first.
This guidance is
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>
> But since I started using Racket, I've never been disappointed by doing
>> things the Racket Way
>>
>
> Who is defining "the Racket Way" in this case? Wouldn't a good definition
> be "practices that the Racket user community values"? Inc
Matthew Butterick wrote on 02/28/2015 11:19 PM:
"Caught on with everyone else"? When I looked into SXML a couple years
ago, it seemed like it was already somewhere between dying and dead. [1]
No, SXML is alive and well. One paragraph... And I was speaking of
when Scheme people went one wa
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> * X-expressions are in official Racket, perhaps because they were already
> used for the old DrScheme documentation browser(?) before SXML caught on
> with everyone else, so people looking now assume that X-expressions are the
> way to go.
>
Matthew Butterick wrote on 02/28/2015 06:49 PM:
If the latter, then you may find that using native Racket data
structures (esp. the X-expression) and native XML-friendly functions
(like `match`) is more convenient.
Either SXML or X-expressions are OK for most purposes.
But, IMHO, SXML is som
Thanks for the reply.
I have a suite of xslt transforms already done, so it would be easiest
to run them as is.
That said, the xslt transforms are a small fraction of the total work
that I have already done on the application in Common Lisp. It will of
course be a substantial effort to conve
It's not clear whether you already have XSLT transforms that you want to
use in Racket, or if you're mentioning XSLT just because it's a method of
parsing & transforming XML. If the latter, then you may find that using
native Racket data structures (esp. the X-expression) and native
XML-friendly fu
DJ wrote on 02/28/2015 11:49 AM:
I have spent a half hour searching for info on how to run xslt
transforms in racket. All that I can find is a mention that sxml /used
to have/ xslt but doesn't any more. I would prefer native racket
rather than some kind of ffi solution if possible.
I don't kn
Ok - new to racket. I would like to use it because I know Common Lisp,
but need something that provides good cross-platform gui capabilities.
(I can't afford a commercial implementation of CL.)
My software will harvest data from several web services that provide
results in xml.
I have spent
There was a Planet package once that had the xslt from Lizorkin's
package. I believe that when John Clements cleaned it up, he didn't do
that part, so the current 'sxml' package doesn't include it either.
Jay
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Sanjeev K Sharma wrote:
> how are folks doing this?
>
how are folks doing this?
I just realized the stx-engine component is gone from Mr. Lizorkin's sxml
package.
Was the functionality tucked away somewhere obvious? (to everyone but me & my
weak google-fu)
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
12 matches
Mail list logo
