Re: [racket] DrRacket on Mac OS X Lion

Yup, the new 5.1.2.3 build worked like a charm... thank you so much!!! On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > Three minutes ago, Felipe Cocco wrote: > > Hey Everyone, > > > > Has anyone successfully gotten Racket up and running on Lion? I'm > > just a bit freaked out because I'm

Re: [racket] DrRacket on Mac OS X Lion

Three minutes ago, Felipe Cocco wrote: > Hey Everyone, > > Has anyone successfully gotten Racket up and running on Lion? I'm > just a bit freaked out because I'm supposed to start teaching a > class with Racket in 2 weeks and our entire workspace has just > upgraded to Lion, but it keeps crashing

[racket] DrRacket on Mac OS X Lion

Hey Everyone, Has anyone successfully gotten Racket up and running on Lion? I'm just a bit freaked out because I'm supposed to start teaching a class with Racket in 2 weeks and our entire workspace has just upgraded to Lion, but it keeps crashing even before it loads. Any help would be MUCH apprec

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions error? WAS Re: Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Nadeem Abdul Hamid wrote: > Seems like you need at least one newline at the end of the file -- put an > empty line or two after your printf("Hello") and then it should work. Yes that did it thank you. _ For list-re

Re: [racket] Cross-compilation

> I created a very basic exe with racket 32bit on windows 7 (64bit) and > it ran fine on winxp. > > I used raco exe and not raco distribute though. Also, I'm not sure > what it means to have gracket as a base. Which option is that? Mark, > can you provide some more details about what you are try

Re: [racket] Cross-compilation

>It should work fine if the distribution was made on the 32 bit >version, which is the only released Windows version for 5.1.1.  If >that's what was used, then I think that there's some unknown problem. I'm on a 32-bit version of Win 7. _ For l

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

Greetings. On 2011 Jul 21, at 18:44, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Norman Gray wrote at 07/21/2011 10:54 AM: >> However when I asserted that all of the angle-brackets in XML syntax, and >> all of the end-tags, are distracting, the interesting rejoinder was: "what >> end tags? oh, those end tags!" --

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

An hour and a half ago, Norman Gray wrote: > > Eli, hello. > > On 2011 Jul 21, at 16:01, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > > 5 minutes ago, Norman Gray wrote: > >> > >> A while ago, I spent a little while on an alternative input syntax > >> for XML which parsed (for example) X

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

Norman Gray wrote at 07/21/2011 10:54 AM: However when I asserted that all of the angle-brackets in XML syntax, and all of the end-tags, are distracting, the interesting rejoinder was: "what end tags? oh, those end tags!" -- that is, the same rejoinder ("what brackets!?") that folk make to the

Re: [racket] Cross-compilation

I created a very basic exe with racket 32bit on windows 7 (64bit) and it ran fine on winxp. I used raco exe and not raco distribute though. Also, I'm not sure what it means to have gracket as a base. Which option is that? Mark, can you provide some more details about what you are trying to compile

Re: [racket] Cross-compilation

It should work fine if the distribution was made on the 32 bit version, which is the only released Windows version for 5.1.1. If that's what was used, then I think that there's some unknown problem. An hour and a half ago, Robby Findler wrote: > I think our intention is that a windows-created di

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:01:44AM -0400, Deren Dohoda wrote: > Fully-parenthesized math is more difficult to read, I agree, but overall > lispy syntax has really grown on me. I can't tell you how many times Excel > has gotten mad at me for typing > > =*5A1 > > I think the math problem is acciden

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

Eli, hello. On 2011 Jul 21, at 16:01, Eli Barzilay wrote: > 5 minutes ago, Norman Gray wrote: >> >> A while ago, I spent a little while on an alternative input syntax >> for XML which parsed (for example) XSLT >> in an s-expression syntax, and produced SAX streams fo

Re: [racket] Cross-compilation

I would not expect an x64 distribution to run on ia32 Windows platforms. On 7/21/2011 8:41 AM, Robby Findler wrote: I think our intention is that a windows-created distribution should run on all windows platforms, tho, so maybe there is something fixable here. Robby On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:

Re: [racket] Cross-compilation

I think our intention is that a windows-created distribution should run on all windows platforms, tho, so maybe there is something fixable here. Robby On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > This is unfortunately true at the moment. > It is a topic of discussion and will

Re: [racket] Cross-compilation

This is unfortunately true at the moment. It is a topic of discussion and will certainly come up in our next design meeting. On Jul 21, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Mark Carter wrote: > I'm using Racket 5.1.1. on win 7. I created an executable of type > "distribution" and base "gracket". A zip file

[racket] Cross-compilation

I'm using Racket 5.1.1. on win 7. I created an executable of type "distribution" and base "gracket". A zip file is created. It runs fine on my machine. I have had a report that it doesn;t run on Win XP, and when it was tried on Win Vista, the user obtained an error 'can't load dll libracket3m_

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

5 minutes ago, Norman Gray wrote: > > A while ago, I spent a little while on an alternative input syntax > for XML which parsed (for example) XSLT > in an s-expression syntax, and produced SAX streams for consumption > by conventional Java XML tools. One big problem wi

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

Greetings. On 2011 Jul 21, at 12:11, Stephan Houben wrote: > As described in Steele and Gabriel, "The Evolution of Lisp": > > "On the other hand, precisely because Lisp makes it easy to play with program > representations, it is always easy for the novice to experiment with > alternative nota

Re: [racket] Re-providing contracted structs?

After chatting with samth, I know the deal here. Provided identifiers are only the same in symbol, but not free-identifier=?. provide/contract creates mangled identifiers and provides them rename-out'd to the original identifier. This does NOT make the provided identifier free-identifier=? to the

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

Re-reading my message, I think I've turned into an Old Lisper. ;) Robby On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > This whole "too many parens" thing has nothing to do with the language > and everything to do with the programmer. > > I googled "javascript example callback code", too

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

Fully-parenthesized math is more difficult to read, I agree, but overall lispy syntax has really grown on me. I can't tell you how many times Excel has gotten mad at me for typing =*5A1 I think the math problem is accidental, related only to the customary use of infix. The difference between (f x

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

It's definitely true that lots of other languages have just as much punctuation as Racket. However, for many of these languages, this is seen as a drawback: witness the popularity of Ruby, or Python, or CoffeeScript. Certainly in the JS community, examples like yours are seen as a problem (for mu

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

On Jul 21, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > This whole "too many parens" thing has nothing to do with the language > and everything to do with the programmer. My response had nothing to do with 'too many parens'. > (Amusingly, the rest of the blog post seems to be about avoiding the >

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

This whole "too many parens" thing has nothing to do with the language and everything to do with the programmer. I googled "javascript example callback code", took the second hit (the first hit seemed to go to a page with VB code; go figure) and the first snipped of javascript code. Guess what it

Re: [racket] FFI question: problem passing a cstruct to a function for output

keyd...@gmx.de wrote: > [...] > I need to define a function > > boolean OCI_GetStruct (OCI_Resultset * rs, void * row_struct, void * > row_struct_ind) > > that takes 2 structs for output, and these have to be generic structs, not > some define-cstruct defined concrete type; so I've tried passi

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

On Jul 21, 2011, at 6:44 AM, Stephen Bloch wrote: > Right. Nested conditionals and loops in Racket are no more syntactically > painful than nested conditionals and loops in Java/C/C++, if you put braces > around the bodies. > ( if ( > x y ) (+ x 3 ) ( * 4 y ) ) > if ( x > y ) { x = 3 ; } else

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

On 07/20/2011 10:21 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: Not to discourage you guys, but just a factoid to keep in mind... 'statistically', 31.891% of Lisp programmers have experimented with a non-parentheses syntax for Lisp (usually to try to make the language more appealing to other people), and 0.001%

Re: [racket] Sweet expressions; or making it easier to introduce Racket to me and my coworkers :-)

On Jul 20, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > Spoiler alert: It turned out to be no hurdle at all. The psychic > whiplash lasted days/weeks, not weeks/months. When I'm talking to teachers about starting in Scheme-related languages, they always say "but the prefix notation will confuse