Eli Barzilay wrote at 07/10/2011 02:25 AM:
it should work as you originally expected, or it should raise an
error to complain about an internal "define" referencing itself like
that and ignoring the pre-existing binding from the argument.
An error would be nice, but racket never did that.
A few seconds ago, Veer wrote:
> I don't get it , can you explain in terms of environment and
> interpretation .
`define' is defining a potentially recursive value, so that
(define (loop) (loop))
works as you expect. In simple terms, you can think about an internal
define as something that ex
I don't get it , can you explain in terms of environment and interpretation .
The simplistic view that I have is :
The body of a function executes , it encounters define form so
expression part of
define is evaluated and bound to identifier part of define in a
environment , it then encounters th
15 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Unless I'm being stupid at this hour, I think you've found a bug: either
No.
> it should work as you originally expected, or it should raise an
> error to complain about an internal "define" referencing itself like
> that and ignoring the pre-existing bind
Unless I'm being stupid at this hour, I think you've found a bug: either
it should work as you originally expected, or it should raise an error
to complain about an internal "define" referencing itself like that and
ignoring the pre-existing binding from the argument. Note that, if you
rename
10 minutes ago, Veer wrote:
> Following code returns # :
>
> (define (make-color color)
> (define color color)
> color)
>
> (make-color 'red) ;; => #
>
> From the guide , I get that internal definition of color is not initialized
> therefore the result is # . What does not initialized means
>
Following code returns # :
(define (make-color color)
(define color color)
color)
(make-color 'red) ;; => #
>From the guide , I get that internal definition of color is not initialized
therefore the result is # . What does not initialized means
in this context.
My assumption was that interna
Thanks very much. I just downloaded the latest nightly build of the full
windows x64 version and my fixnums indeed go up to and including 62 bits. I
keep being amazed about how quick PLT responds to customer requests and how
rapidly Racket is develloping further ad further. On the dev list, which I
At Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:18:09 +0200, Stephan Houben wrote:
> I understand that (barring use of features like places or futures)
> Racket threads normally do not run truly concurrently.
Right --- not "truly concurrently" from the OS/machine perspective.
> But what about C functions called through t
Hi list,
I understand that (barring use of features like places or futures)
Racket threads normally do not run truly concurrently.
But what about C functions called through the FFI?
I that _fun has an option like #:atomic? ;
does this mean that the default behaviour is that the C function
runs n
10 matches
Mail list logo
