Code is available here https://github.com/veer-public/OAuth-2.0 .
Thanks.
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think we need "web-flow/web-server-flow.rkt" and its dependencies to
> diagnose this problem. Is that code available somewhere?
>
> At Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:10:44 +
Well, it does kinda work in the REPL. If you use check-expect in the REPL,
then use (test), it will display the results for running the check forms
declared _in_ the REPL, just not the ones in the source. It just seems to
start with a clean slate.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Stephen Bloch wr
On Sep 18, 2011, at 9:22 PM, Luke Vilnis wrote:
Thanks guys, that works! Still, it's pretty confusing that running
(test) from the repl does not work, only inserting it at the end of
the file. It would be nice to mention that in the docs, something
like:
"Note that the check forms only r
Thanks guys, that works! Still, it's pretty confusing that running
(test)from the repl does not work, only inserting it at the end of the
file. It
would be nice to mention that in the docs, something like:
"Note that the check forms only register checks to be performed. The checks
are actually run
On 19/09/11 01:56, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
That convention, according to Richard Gabriel, came from Muddle/MDL
(as did Zork) [page 11]:
http://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf
Thanks Jon, that's cleared an argument up for me. :-)
Charlie.
_
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>> That convention, according to Richard Gabriel...
>
> (Guy Steel and Richard Gabriel, I mean.)
^e
Good thing I don't write bibliographies anymore.
_
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> That convention, according to Richard Gabriel...
(Guy Steel and Richard Gabriel, I mean.)
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
That convention, according to Richard Gabriel, came from Muddle/MDL
(as did Zork) [page 11]:
http://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf
-Jon
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Charlie Turner wrote:
> Common Lisp's convention w.r.t predicate names appears to be all about the p
> or -p suffix
Common Lisp's convention w.r.t predicate names appears to be all about
the p or -p suffixes. My question is: Did older lisps use the '?'
convention before CL, or was Scheme the first to conventionalise the use
of ? in predicates?
Sorry for the off-topic question, I couldn't find any definitive
On Sep 18, 2011, at 8:21 PM, Luke Vilnis wrote:
I was wondering how to get test-engine working with #lang, or non-
student languages in general. I tried something like this:
#lang racket
(require test-engine/racket-tests)
(check-expect 12 (+ 6 7)) ;;sic
But no luck. I also tried it with (req
Try putting (test) at the very bottom of the file in which you have
your check-expect's.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Luke Vilnis wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> I was wondering how to get test-engine working with #lang, or non-student
> languages in general. I tried something like this:
> #lang rac
Hi everybody,
I was wondering how to get test-engine working with #lang, or non-student
languages in general. I tried something like this:
#lang racket
(require test-engine/racket-tests)
(check-expect 12 (+ 6 7)) ;;sic
But no luck. I also tried it with (require test-engine/racket-gui), but I'm
gu
I started this as some quick comments, but it wrote itself into a
long-winded explanation of why what Racket does is following the Lisp
tradition *more* closely than other Lisps. Feel free to skip if
you're not into meta-meta-syntax discussions...
Two hours ago, Danny Yoo wrote:
>
> So there's
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM, John Clements
wrote:
> My impression is that ocaml is much more actively developed & maintained that
> SML.
> Furthermore, having used both (2-3K in each?), I believe that the only
> differences you'll
> encounter early will be ocaml's single semicolon rather tha
Hi All, Just my two cents. :-) I am coming from the "original Lisp" point of
view as well.At the beginning of the discussion I have not undertood any of the
answers. They were"very cryptic" to me as well, but I have to say that these
two papers made clear whatis the position of DrRacket and I un
Whoops. Looks like it's not there. As Matthias notes, the Second
Edition is a work in progress and that module either isn't finished or
didn't make it into the latest build. You might try one of the nightly
builds, as I think the latest edition of the book was a little behind
the latest build of Dr
On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Grant Rettke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Over the years I've noticed on-list that comments are made about OCaml
> and Haskell and abstract data types.
>
> It seems like it would be fun to learn more about this stuff; and I
> guessed that learning SML would be a nice place to
On Sep 18, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Racket Noob wrote:
> Ok, maybe this is not something that's important in other programming
> languages, but it *is* important in lisps. As a lisp educator, how can you
> *not* to teach this fundamental fact about lisp?
Two questions:
1) How many people here are Li
[CCing the Racket mailing list]
> Yes, I got this to work. But, what if I don't want to use DrRacket, but just
> pure old console Racket.exe instead? Or emacs?
Oh! Then it should just print like Lisp mode, if I remember
correctly. Give me a sec; let me double check that.
;
> Such a cold community. :(
> I give up. I'm sorry for bothering you with my bad english and stupidity,
> I'll never post to this group again.
Hello!
Whoa! I think you are reading a lot more aggression out of those
replies than what actually exists. Your english is fine; no one has
made a singl
On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Racket Noob wrote:
> Such a cold community. :(
Cold? No way! We're *hot*. That is: we're eager to discuss, and eager to argue.
If anything, we're holding back, to avoid making you angry. Maybe we should
have held back a bit more? I know it can feel a bit lonely w
FWIW, I don't think anyone was bothered (only that we have a technical
disagreement) and I'm sorry to see you go.
Best wishes,
Robby
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
> Such a cold community. :(
> I give up. I'm sorry for bothering you with my bad english and stupidity,
> I'll never post to this group agai
Racket Noob wrote at 09/18/2011 04:41 PM:
Ok, maybe this is not something that's important in other programming
languages, but it *is* important in lisps. As a lisp educator, how can
you *not* to teach this fundamental fact about lisp?
To me, speaking of real use of the language, it seems a lo
Such a cold community. :(
I give up. I'm sorry for bothering you with my bad english and stupidity, I'll
never post to this group again.
> From: s...@cs.brown.edu
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:47:45 -0400
> Subject: Re: [racket] Quoted expressions in #lang racket
> To: racketn...@hotmail.com
> CC
> Ok, maybe this is not something that's important in other programming
> languages, but it *is* important in lisps. As a lisp educator, how can you
> *not* to teach this fundamental fact about lisp?
It's funny that here you're berating Robby, who's put more time into
different ways of printing th
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
>> FWIW, as one PL educator, I don't find that to be something I wish to
>> teach to the students who are beginning to learn what is important
>> about programming languages. I also don't think that a list is a
>> particularly good representation for a function application i
> FWIW, as one PL educator, I don't find that to be something I wish to
> teach to the students who are beginning to learn what is important
> about programming languages. I also don't think that a list is a
> particularly good representation for a function application in an
> implementation and a
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
> I think beginner should understand that list is basic lisp notion which
> serves (at least) two purposes:
>
> 1) list as data: as in (1 2 3) or as in whole lisp program
>
> or
>
> 2) list as expression denoting function application: as in (+ 1 2)
FWIW, as one PL educator,
We are not teaching Lisp. We're teaching Racket.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
> I kindly suggest the thought that omitting the quote is precisely what
> makes things harder for beginners. It seems to suggest to the
> untrained that REPL is returning something that is not a value. As
> Matthias and others have pointed out, you can not take the "value" (1
> 2 3) and use it s
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
>
> You can't compute (car (1 2 3)) because before car even begin, it's
> parameter, list (1 2 3) must be evaluated, but 1 is not a procedure name. It
> is different than in (quote (1 2 3)) where such evaluation doesn't take
> place.
>
Yes, so does that not alert you that
Grant Rettke wrote:
Are _ML for the Working Programmer_ and _Elements of ML Programming,
ML97_ a good place to start?
I am a great fan of "Working Programmer", not of "Elements".
Quite apart from its clear and sensible treatment of SML, "Working
Programmer" has many case studies that will b
On Sep 18, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Racket Noob wrote:
>
> > You keep thinking (1 2 3) is the canonical form of a list. It is
> > not. It's just a particular *print representation* of list. So is
> > # or one of the many alternatives Eli proposed.
> >
>
> Oh, I understand that. It's just that I don'
Here http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/HtDP2e/i2-3.html i found this:"You
can use the function show-in-browser from "2htdp/web-io.rkt" to display the
result of functions such as my-first-web-page in a web browser". Unfortunately,
I cannot find web-io.rkt nowhere in Racket, version 5.1.3.
On 18/09/11 18:27, Grant Rettke wrote:
If you could compose the perfect course of reading (books, papers,
essays) for a student to follow to learn how to design and implement
compilers and interpreters what would it look like?
More generally (in the scope of PLT), I've found the following resourc
On 2011-09-17 1:50 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> [*] I believe that there is already a more ambitious project involving
> Racket and MIPS
It's not super ambitious yet in any MIPS-specific direction. We're
running Racket on our little MIPS machines using the plain C
interpreter, without the benefit of
This is prompted by Shriram's mentioning ML and coyly not mentioning
PLAI? If you want to learn more about interpreting programming
languages, why not start with PLAI, then go from there.
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_
For list-related adminis
> It's just that I don't understand why you (i.e.
> Racket implementers) choose Racket by default prints list this
> way (different than all other lisps). I think this choice can confuse
> [...] users who switches from different lisp
> implementations [...]
Then it nicely accomplishes the task of
> Hi,
>
> If you could compose the perfect course of reading (books, papers,
> essays) for a student to follow to learn how to design and implement
> compilers and interpreters what would it look like?
Some students at Brown did a group independent study on compilers using ML
last spring. Their s
Just because Lisp got it wrong for 22+ years and most Lisps are still doing it
wrong, we don't have to continue making the same mistake. Long live 2Lisp,
3Lisp, and all other rational Lisps.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:27:29PM -0500, Grant Rettke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If you could compose the perfect course of reading (books, papers,
> essays) for a student to follow to learn how to design and implement
> compilers and interpreters what would it look like?
One good elementary text, which g
> You keep thinking (1 2 3) is the canonical form of a list. It is
> not. It's just a particular *print representation* of list. So is
> # or one of the many alternatives Eli proposed.
> Oh, I understand that. It's just that I don't understand why you (i.e. Racket
> implementers) choose Racke
Hi,
Over the years I've noticed on-list that comments are made about OCaml
and Haskell and abstract data types.
It seems like it would be fun to learn more about this stuff; and I
guessed that learning SML would be a nice place to start because it is
stable and seemed to be used by educators a lo
It depends on what kinds of compilers/interpreters they were trying to
build. A course of study for Fortran would like quite different from
one for ML would look quite different from one for JavaScript (though
there are of course many overlaps).
Shriram
___
You keep thinking (1 2 3) is the canonical form of a list. It is
not. It's just a particular *print representation* of list. So is
# or one of the many alternatives Eli proposed.
Your attempt to use an interpreter model is commendable but falls
short. That is because you only described the REA
Hi,
If you could compose the perfect course of reading (books, papers,
essays) for a student to follow to learn how to design and implement
compilers and interpreters what would it look like?
Why I am asking: you guys are skilled educators and master computer
scientists, and I feel like both are
You can't compute (car (1 2 3)) because before car even begin, it's parameter,
list (1 2 3) must be evaluated, but 1 is not a procedure name. It is different
than in (quote (1 2 3)) where such evaluation doesn't take place. > Date: Sun,
18 Sep 2011 12:05:20 -0500
> From: gret...@acm.org
> To:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Mr Noob: if (1 2 3) is a value, why can't I compute (car (1 2 3)). 4 is a
> value and I can compute (+ 4 3). #t is a value and I can compute (not #t).
> Why do you insist that I cannot compute with (1 2 3) if it is a value?
Maybe R
Sorry Shriram, i didn't mean to insult you or anyone else, but my poor english
prevents me to express myself clearly. Still, i will try to explain what
bothers me with the way Racket prints quoted expressions and I hope that you'll
understand what i want to say:
Suppose that we enter expressio
Mr Noob: if (1 2 3) is a value, why can't I compute (car (1 2 3)). 4 is a value
and I can compute (+ 4 3). #t is a value and I can compute (not #t). Why do you
insist that I cannot compute with (1 2 3) if it is a value?
_
For list-related admini
20 minutes ago, Racket Noob wrote:
>
> Saying that (quote (1 2 3)) evaluates to (quote (1 2 3)) [instead to
> (1 2 3)] is the same nonsanse to me like saying that (+ 1 2)
> evaluates to (+ 1 2) [instead to 3].
Yet another view:
(+ 1 2) evaluates to 3 is nonsense, it really evaluates to three.
(
On Sep 18, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Racket Noob wrote:
> Saying that (quote (1 2 3)) evaluates to (quote (1 2 3)) [instead to (1 2 3)]
> is the same nonsanse to me like saying that (+ 1 2) evaluates to (+ 1 2)
> [instead to 3].
Be careful with words like "nonsense" :).
What does 3 evaluate to?
3
I used different words than Matthias because we were trying to offer
somewhat different explanations of what is happening. You chose to
use his words in response to mine, which only confuses things further.
(There is, incidentally, a good reason why (+ 1 2) could, but does
not, evaluate to (+ 1 2
Saying that (quote (1 2 3)) evaluates to (quote (1 2 3)) [instead to (1 2 3)]
is the same nonsanse to me like saying that (+ 1 2) evaluates to (+ 1 2)
[instead to 3].
> From: s...@cs.brown.edu
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:15:41 -0400
> Subject: Re: [racket] Quoted expressions in #lang racket
> T
Yep, that's what he's saying.
I know why you're confused. Let me see if I can help.
Here's an input program:
'(1 2 3)
Now be careful to make the following distinction:
- what it computes
- what it prints
What it computes is a list with three values. There are at least
three different ways
> >> In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
>
>
> No it doesn't. In CL and Clojure, '(1 2 3) evaluates to '(1 2 3) and then the
> printer turns it into (1 2 3).
>
Wait a minute, I dont get it! You are saying that (quote (1 2 3)) evaluates to
(quote (1 2
On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Grant Rettke wrote:
> 2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
>> In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
No it doesn't. In CL and Clojure, '(1 2 3) evaluates to '(1 2 3) and then the
printer turns it into (1 2 3).
Now imagine you wish to experi
At Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:15:58 +0200, Racket Noob wrote:
> In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
> But in #lang racket the same expression evaluates to '(1 2 3).
> Why?
In Racket, as in Common Lisp and Clojure, the expression
2011/9/18 Racket Noob :
> In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
> But in #lang racket the same expression evaluates to '(1 2 3). Why?
In the bottom left hand of the screen in DrRacket click the "Choose
Language" dropdown, "Use the language declared in source" sh
In Common Lisp or Clojure REPL, expression '(1 2 3) evaluates to (1 2 3).
But in #lang racket the same expression evaluates to '(1 2 3). Why?
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-l
Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
I have a lot - and I do mean a lot - to learn about it. I tried putting in some
simple "facts", and noted how the querying worked. Oh my. It was a bit of an
eye-opener. I see what you mean about the querying. It's as if a lot of what is
in the developers "domai
Hi!
You can use Datalog or Racklog. In order to decide or just feel comfortable
with any of them it could be beneficial for you to grasp some basics of
Prolog; here's a decent online material:
http://www.learnprolognow.org/
Speaking of structures: you don't have to name the fields. Facts you stat
I've been in the process of writing a little financial accounts package in
Racket. I'm wondering if, instead of writing a lot of scheme code, a lot of
funtionality could be more expressively and concisely be written in Datalog.
I've never used Datalog before, nor Prolog, but I know it's somethin
63 matches
Mail list logo
