What does it mean to 'propagate' a package?
On Aug 17, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Jeff Lindblom wrote:
> Hello,
>Our Csci Discipline at the University of Minnesota, Morris will be using
> DrRacket in our main software lab and I was wondering if a package could be
> propagated for ease of update a
Google lhs2TeX.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
Hello,
Our Csci Discipline at the University of Minnesota, Morris will be
using DrRacket in our main software lab and I was wondering if a package
could be propagated for ease of update and maintenance. We've used
DrScheme for a number of years and will be pleased to use DrRacket from
now
As the futures implementation stands right now, yes, recursively spawning
futures is a bad idea - 'future' is currently treated like any other
blocking primitive. This is something that we've discussed and is very
likely to make it into a subsequent release (it's on the todo list).
But you can us
I've wanted to see . liberated for a long time.
I agree that the shift from PLT Scheme to Racket opens up this
possibility. Fortunately, we don't already use . for much already. I
suspect the number of actual uses in source are very small.
(Indeed, it opens up the possibility that a whole bunch
I don't see why normal scope wouldn't take care of it.
(: f (Posn -> Number))
(define (f a)
(if (zero? (random 2))
a.x
(let ([a.x 2])
a.x)))
Especially if this is done with an identifier macro because the second
one won't even get called.
Jay
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Sh
Not as long as "." is legal in the middle of an identifier:
> (define a.b 3)
> a.b
3
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Nice idea. I second that.
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>
>> This is a price you are already paying in Typed Racket. I'd
On 08/18/2010 09:52 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
To make this available in Racket, you'd have to port his macros
from R6RS Scheme to Racket. I suspect that this would be a minor
task.
To anyone interested in porting the code to Racket: if the
implementation looks kinda complex, it's partly b
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Jakub Piotr Cłapa wrote:
> On 18.08.10 17:22, Ray Racine wrote:
>
>> This topic comes up so frequently (schemes structure accessors/mutators)
>> , and has been independently solved in and around the same conceptual
>> solution (a chaining dot syntax) that I've oft
The fundamental problem is the syntax of identifiers. The rest is details.
On Aug 18, 2010 11:25 AM, "Ray Racine" wrote:
> This topic comes up so frequently (schemes structure accessors/mutators) ,
> and has been independently solved in and around the same conceptual
solution
> (a chaining dot sy
On 18.08.10 17:22, Ray Racine wrote:
This topic comes up so frequently (schemes structure accessors/mutators)
, and has been independently solved in and around the same conceptual
solution (a chaining dot syntax) that I've often wondered why Racket
would not make such a capability "core" to the l
On 18.08.10 17:18, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
Separate from that is the reaction when something isn't present in the
association. There is nothing preventing o.f -- which, as we've
noted, is really o["f"] in these languages -- from halting with an
error when "f" isn't associated with o. If Ra
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 16:52, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Eduardo is providing a macro that helps you abbreviate complex
> selector and mutator chains. The BENFIT you get is that instead
> of writing
>
> (posn-x (bird-posn (sky-bird (world-sky some-world
>
> you can write -- in Racket --
>
Quote from Shriram: "Read the whole thing, don't just read the first
paragraph like one of
today's kids. (-:"
haha...ill try not to.
and thank you for explaining
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/use
Nice idea. I second that.
On Aug 18, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> This is a price you are already paying in Typed Racket. I'd like to see more
> ways of putting types to work implemented.
>
> Jay
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 18, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrot
On Aug 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
>> In a language like Ruby,
>>
>> pos.draw
>>
>> just doesn't care, If pos has an draw field at run-time, good enough.
>> Even if pos isn't a position but happens to have a draw field, just
>> keep on computing.
>
> This is not quite
This topic comes up so frequently (schemes structure accessors/mutators) ,
and has been independently solved in and around the same conceptual solution
(a chaining dot syntax) that I've often wondered why Racket would not make
such a capability "core" to the language. It seems such an obvious
abso
> In a language like Ruby,
>
> pos.draw
>
> just doesn't care, If pos has an draw field at run-time, good enough.
> Even if pos isn't a position but happens to have a draw field, just
> keep on computing.
This is not quite accurate. You're conflating representation,
reaction, and a smidgen of v
This is a price you are already paying in Typed Racket. I'd like to see more
ways of putting types to work implemented.
Jay
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 18, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Eduardo is providing a macro that helps you abbreviate complex
> selector and mutator c
Eduardo is providing a macro that helps you abbreviate complex
selector and mutator chains. The BENFIT you get is that instead
of writing
(posn-x (bird-posn (sky-bird (world-sky some-world
you can write -- in Racket --
some-world.sky.bird.posn.x
and make Racket programs look as sho
No, he showed how one could use a macro system to obtain a C-like
structure-indexing system in Scheme.
Read the whole thing, don't just read the first paragraph like one of
today's kids. (-:
Shriram
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Mathew Kurian wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Ed
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Eduardo Cavazos wrote:
>
> Mathew Kurian:
>
> However, in the case of universe/world teachpacks, where the use of
>> states is a vital component, a set of code can get very long,
>> especially if the program is very complex and contains multiple
>> structures (in
Mathew Kurian:
However, in the case of universe/world teachpacks, where the use of
states is a vital component, a set of code can get very long,
especially if the program is very complex and contains multiple
structures (in some cases structures inside structures inside
structures) within the s
23 matches
Mail list logo
