>
> The calls that are missing appear to tail calls, and Racket performs
> tail-call optimization, so I imagine those missing functions are not
> really "on the stack" at the time of the error.
>
> I don't know that there is a way around this except to deliberately
> subvert the tail-call optimi
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 09:04:49PM -0800, thomas.lynch wrote:
> I have a related question. I turned on error trace using the command line
> Robby
> suggested, but it doesn't give me a trace, but rather just the call point and
> error function. Here is an example, the trace should be f -> gg ->
I have a related question. I turned on error trace using the command line Robby
suggested, but it doesn't give me a trace, but rather just the call point and
error function. Here is an example, the trace should be f -> gg -> g -> hh ->
h then bang, the error. But instead Racket shows me f -
At Sun, 8 Nov 2015 21:56:04 -0500, Ben Lerner wrote:
>
> On 11/8/2015 9:18 PM, Nota Poin wrote:
> >> Or if you insist on command line usage, use error trace.
> > What's wrong with command line usage? Anyway, I was going to say this:
> >
> > http://docs.racket-lang.org/errortrace/using-errortrace.h
How much memory do you have on your machine? 0.25 seconds per
keystroke sounds worse than expected.
Robby
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Nota Poin wrote:
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 1:38:56 AM UTC, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> Use drracket.
> Yeah, I would, but it takes about 30 seconds to
On 11/8/2015 9:18 PM, Nota Poin wrote:
Or if you insist on command line usage, use error trace.
What's wrong with command line usage? Anyway, I was going to say this:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/errortrace/using-errortrace.html
That seems to enable stack traces that work.
Relatedly, is there
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 1:38:56 AM UTC, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Use drracket.
Yeah, I would, but it takes about 30 seconds to start up if I disable all the
extensions, add another 10 or 20 for the debugger, and then when I type it lags
behind at about 0.25s per character. Also it cons
Use drracket.
Or if you insist on command line usage, use error trace.
> On Nov 8, 2015, at 8:35 PM, Nota Poin wrote:
>
> I'll have code like this:
>
> #lang racket/base
>
> (define (baz foo)
> (error 'whoops))
>
> (define (bar ber)
> (baz ber))
>
> (define (foo ber)
> (let ((a 3))
>
I'll have code like this:
#lang racket/base
(define (baz foo)
(error 'whoops))
(define (bar ber)
(baz ber))
(define (foo ber)
(let ((a 3))
(if (and
(= a 3)
(= (* a 9) 27)
(bar ber)
(list? (list 1 2 3 4)))
9 matches
Mail list logo