At Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:04:04 -0400,
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:01 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> >
> >> If so why are many of the combinations missing?
> >
> > Because this is work in progress to s
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:01 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
>
>> If so why are many of the combinations missing?
>
> Because this is work in progress to support typed-based optimizations.
> Roughly speaking, with types TR can macro-gen
On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:01 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> If so why are many of the combinations missing?
Because this is work in progress to support typed-based optimizations. Roughly
speaking, with types TR can macro-generate code that exploits Racket's
specialized primitives to an extent
I have a function that consumes two Number's and tries to compare them
using <=. Rightfully, TR gives a type error. The message says:
Type Checker: No function domains matched in function application:
Domains: Fixnum Zero
Integer Zero
Positive-Fixnum Fixnum
Nonnegative
On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Just in case: John, yo know you can write (struct b a (f3)) to
> statically declare the super struct, right?
Fooey! No! Reading the docs more carefully, of course, it's right there in
front of me. When I discovered that (define-struct (b a) (
Just in case: John, yo know you can write (struct b a (f3)) to
statically declare the super struct, right?
Robby
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Clements
wrote:
> It looks to me like match doesn't work nicely with #:super structs. For
> instance, this program:
>
> #lang racket
>
> (struc
Hi,
I am a Mac user and have just started to learn Scheme. Many apps on
the Mac are scriptable via Applescript. Is there any Scheme way to
leverage this capability, like an Applescript bridge?
Thanks,
Mike
_
For list-related administrative t
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 09/21/2010 03:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM, John Clements
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks to me like match doesn't work nicely with #:super structs. For
>>> instance, this program:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
On 09/21/2010 03:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM, John Clements
wrote:
It looks to me like match doesn't work nicely with #:super structs. For
instance, this program:
[snip]
It's easy to work around this, but it would be nice if it worked. Am I missing
This isn't going to work because #:super uses runtime information to
find the super struct while struct can only communicate with match
statically.
Jay
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:31 PM, John Clements
wrote:
> It looks to me like match doesn't work nicely with #:super structs. For
> instance, th
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM, John Clements
wrote:
> It looks to me like match doesn't work nicely with #:super structs. For
> instance, this program:
[snip]
> It's easy to work around this, but it would be nice if it worked. Am I
> missing something obvious?
I don't know if it's obvious
It looks to me like match doesn't work nicely with #:super structs. For
instance, this program:
#lang racket
(struct a (f1 f2))
(struct b (f3) #:super struct:a)
(match 'whocares
[(struct b (f1 f2 f3)) 13])
signals the error:
match: wrong number for fields for structure b: expected 1 but g
In htdp/2e I think we could probably pass the "word" part in the
(define-struct word ...) and that would not require any special powers
nor the "secrets" security hole.
Robby
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot!!
>
> (This is indeed a dirty secret part; a
Thanks a lot!!
(This is indeed a dirty secret part; a change to structs in *sl shouldn't
trigger a change to a teachpack.)
And in 2htdp, we'll abolish it. -- Matthias
On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Okay. Looks like that was the only thing. At least the first example
>
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Jay McCarthy wrote at 09/21/2010 03:14 PM:
>>
>> I don't think any generate bytecode.
>>
>> My personal opinion is that this is a sign of a good thing.
>>
>
> Me too. Using Scheme as a target language was one of the reasons I moved
> almost
thank you martin
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Martin DeMello wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Mathew Kurian
> wrote:
> > BTW...i didnt know Moby already did this
> > If I could see Moby's code, we could probably merge these together and I
> > could add Netbeans features such as draw
Okay. Looks like that was the only thing. At least the first example
below works properly and is now codified in a test suite (altho the
correct incantation seems to be (hangman make-word reveal symbol?)).
It just does the below and then waits for a "Hangman" frame to appear.
If one does, the test
Jay McCarthy wrote at 09/21/2010 03:14 PM:
I don't think any generate bytecode.
My personal opinion is that this is a sign of a good thing.
Me too. Using Scheme as a target language was one of the reasons I
moved almost all my work to Scheme (maybe 9 years ago).
I wasted a shameful amou
On the other hand, the fact that the bytecodes are wel-documented
(both text docs, as well as a Redex model) has been a huge boon to
apps that can rely on all these front-ends to do their job, and then
port just the back-end to other platforms.
For the reasons Jay explains, I'd be hard-pressed to
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> More seriously, the bytecode is harder to generate,
> not more expressive (I think) and generating it loses you
> optimizations.
I can only think of one optimization that runs on byte code. The byte
code is more expressive though, beca
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Jay McCarthy wrote at 09/21/2010 03:02 PM:
>>
>> We already have hosted Javascript, Algol 60, Datalog, R5RS, and R6RS. In
>> the past, we've had version of Java in the core. We have Python and SML out
>> there from people at Utah.
>>
>
> Do t
I don't think any generate bytecode.
My personal opinion is that this is a sign of a good thing.
Languages target the JVM because targeting Java is so painful, so we
should not be surprised that people DON'T do it.
Targeting Racket is designed to be easy with the syntactic extension
system, so w
Jay McCarthy wrote at 09/21/2010 03:02 PM:
We already have hosted Javascript, Algol 60, Datalog, R5RS, and R6RS. In the
past, we've had version of Java in the core. We have Python and SML out there
from people at Utah.
Do these all translate to Racket syntax, and then the normal Racket
in
We already have hosted Javascript, Algol 60, Datalog, R5RS, and R6RS.
In the past, we've had version of Java in the core. We have Python and
SML out there from people at Utah.
Jay
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Grant Rettke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a precedent for hosting other languages on
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Grant Rettke wrote:
> Is there a precedent for hosting other languages on the Racket VM in
> the same way that JRuby and Clojure live in the JVM or F# and
> IronPython live on the CLR?
See the Algol60 experimental language, the #lang datalog language,
Dave Herman'
Hi,
Is there a precedent for hosting other languages on the Racket VM in
the same way that JRuby and Clojure live in the JVM or F# and
IronPython live on the CLR?
Is that interesting to users? Or implementers?
How technically difficult is it? (days/months/years)
Are there research opportunities
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Will M. Farr wrote:
> it's interesting. Have a look at OCaml's Camlp4: a macro language where
> people sometimes *actually* use
there's also nemerle's approach that supports non/ast versions.
http://nemerle.org/macros.html
sincerely.
__
On Sep 21, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Anton van Straaten wrote:
> John Clements wrote:
>> Student: wouldn't it be cool if you could specify source-to-source
>> translations for languages like c++ by defining the operations at the AST
>> level, after they're parsed?
>> Me: AST level <=> s-expressions. E
John Clements wrote:
Student: wouldn't it be cool if you could specify source-to-source translations
for languages like c++ by defining the operations at the AST level, after
they're parsed?
Me: AST level <=> s-expressions. Everyone who tries this eventually decides that it's easier to simply
John,
I know this isn't the survey you asked for, but rather one data point in such a
survey; nevertheless, I hope it's interesting. Have a look at OCaml's Camlp4:
a macro language where people sometimes *actually* use the AST to write
transformations (sometimes quotations just won't cut it).
> Me: AST level <=> s-expressions.
Not true. S-expressions are one step removed from true abstract
syntax. The conveyor of the former into the latter is parse.
> So here's my question: is there a good *survey* of syntax & hygienic
> macro systems that tries to provide some insight into what we'
Me: what are you interested in?
Student: wouldn't it be cool if you could specify source-to-source translations
for languages like c++ by defining the operations at the AST level, after
they're parsed?
Me: AST level <=> s-expressions. Everyone who tries this eventually decides
that it's easier
Thanks for the feedback!
> - I wish conditionals were lighter weight.
> Maybe cond: Q0, A0, ... else: An
I expressly want the signposts for intermediate expressions. It makes
clearer what you're looking at -- a question or an answer.
Though I'm not a fan of cond's syntax, at least we have sig
htdp/tests/hangman1.rkt ; run (hangman make-reveal make-reveal add1) in REPL
htdp/tests/hangman-error.rkt ; just run
ignore errors
On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> I've fixed the problem that was introduced when signatures were added,
> but there seem to be other proble
I've fixed the problem that was introduced when signatures were added,
but there seem to be other problems with the teachpack.
If someone would be kind enough to provide a test case (a sample
non-"solution" that at least runs) I'll keep working on it and put it
into drdr so that we don't have this
(require htdp/hangman)
(define-struct wrd (a b c))
(hangman make-wrd make-wrd add1)
It's time to admit, nobody gets hung anymore.
On Sep 20, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Frodo theGreat wrote:
> DrRacket, version 5.0.1 [3m]
> Line 253, char 51.
>
> The `4' should be replaced with `5'.
>
> Frodo
>
> __
Spooky. 2 weeks ago I saw a reference to this while reading the macros chapter
in SAtoP and was looking for a copy online.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/
Have you read about get-key-code (and other related functions) in the docs? On
earlier versions of PLT Scheme I was investigating things like:
(on-subwindow-char the-win key-event)
(display (send key-event get-key-code))
I don't know how much things have changed since then.
>From the short desc
I haven't tested the following with Racket 5.x, but either they'll work
or give you some idea of how easy the FFI makes many things:
http://groups.google.com/group/plt-scheme/browse_frm/thread/5c41593f90ef/68f322eedcdb4dff?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=curses#68f322eedcdb4dff
Note: There is also a "curse
39 matches
Mail list logo
