Re: [racket] Modifying bindings in parent environment

2010-08-08 Thread Vincent St-Amour
At Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:59:41 -0400, Joe Snikeris wrote: > Is there a way for a procedure to modify bindings in it's parent > environment? I suppose the technique would be similar to passing a > C-style pointer to the procedure. Boxes would probably give you what you want. http://docs.racket-lang.

Re: [racket] documentation example for slideshow/pict

2010-08-08 Thread Neil Van Dyke
Bill Richter wrote at 08/08/2010 10:01 PM: I think the question is when Racket plans to take over the world of web applications. Racket isn't ready to take over now, because the docs don't have enough examples. But maybe you racketeers need another 10 years anyway, so right now, the docs only

Re: [racket] Modifying bindings in parent environment

2010-08-08 Thread Hari Prashanth
You can do it using a simple macro (define-syntax f (syntax-rules () ((_ a n) (set! a n (define p 1) (f p 3) p > 3 (define r 5) (f r 30) r > 30 Hari - Original Message - From: "Joe Snikeris" To: users@racket-lang.org Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2010 9:59:41 PM GMT -05:00 US/Can

Re: [racket] Modifying bindings in parent environment

2010-08-08 Thread Jakub Piotr Cłapa
On 09.08.10 03:59, Joe Snikeris wrote: Hi all, Is there a way for a procedure to modify bindings in it's parent environment? I suppose the technique would be similar to passing a C-style pointer to the procedure. For example: (define p 1) (f p 3) p 3 Something like this? #lang racket (def

Re: [racket] documentation example for slideshow/pict

2010-08-08 Thread Bill Richter
Yes, but still, upload your code to the cookbook. Definitely, Shriram. Ben was excited when I told him you said he should upload to www.schemecookbook.org. A Sudoku solver is a good programming exercise, because Sudoku is all about sets & functions, which become Scheme through map, filter & b

[racket] Modifying bindings in parent environment

2010-08-08 Thread Joe Snikeris
Hi all, Is there a way for a procedure to modify bindings in it's parent environment? I suppose the technique would be similar to passing a C-style pointer to the procedure. For example: (define p 1) (f p 3) p > 3 Define f... Thanks in advance, Joe

Re: [racket] Problem with get-slides-as-picts

2010-08-08 Thread Justin Zamora
Thanks! That worked. Justin On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Hari Prashanth wrote: > You must use #lang slideshow. If you use #lang racket you get that error. > I dont know why or what it means. > > HTH > Hari > > - Original Message - > From: "Justin Zamora" > To: users@racket-lang.org

Re: [racket] Problem with get-slides-as-picts

2010-08-08 Thread Hari Prashanth
You must use #lang slideshow. If you use #lang racket you get that error. I dont know why or what it means. HTH Hari - Original Message - From: "Justin Zamora" To: users@racket-lang.org Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2010 3:11:20 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [racket] Problem with ge

[racket] Problem with get-slides-as-picts

2010-08-08 Thread Justin Zamora
I'm using the simple "Hello, World" slideshow from the docs: #lang slideshow (slide #:title "How to Say Hello" (t "Hello World!")) When I run get-slides-as-picts, I get the following error: > (get-slides-as-picts "simple-slide.rkt" 1024 768 false) send: target is not an object: #f for method:

Re: [racket] message passing

2010-08-08 Thread Jos Koot
May be we can help better with a reference to the exercise. I really can't make up what you are trying to do. Jos _ From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of iam_h...@aol.in Sent: 08 August 2010 19:20 To: users@racket-lang.org Subject: [racke

[racket] message passing

2010-08-08 Thread iam_here
Hello schemers what if I have program of massage passing and I have to return the object when it is defined. example- (define (single-order) (let ( (delivery #f) ) (define (the-order req) (cond ((eq? req 'available) available) (else (error "the-order: unknown r

Re: [racket] documentation example for slideshow/pict

2010-08-08 Thread Horace Dynamite
> I suppose you're right, but you (aren't you one of the maintainers?) > may not be a good judge of whether the documentation has enough > examples for the ''everyday programming'' folks Racket is targeting. No, I'm not one of the maintainers :-). I'm still very much a newbie in computing. > I a