On 10/04/2011 01:21 PM, George Neuner wrote:
Hi all,
I am playing with the parser tools in Racket. I would like to be able
pass a separately defined list of symbols to define-empty-tokens (which
is a syntax macro defined in parser-tools/private-lex/token.rkt).
Unfortunately passing a list to def
On 10/08/2011 10:12 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
[...]
(2) I object to
provide-with-whatever-contract-you-already-have
because I think programmers should explicitly state what
they want (if they want something logical).
We can already do this
(define primes-to-primes (-> (listof prime?
Thanks. That is what I eventually figured out I needed to do. Also the original
problem was a bug in the Macro Stepper, pr12248, which only added to my
confusion.
-Eric
On Oct 8, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Marco Maggi wrote:
> Eric Dobson wrote:
>
>> I am playing around with syntax marks and have a
Eric Dobson wrote:
> I am playing around with syntax marks and have a program
> whose output confuses me.
>
> #lang racket
> (require (for-syntax racket/syntax))
> (define-for-syntax marker (make-syntax-introducer))
> (define-syntax (mark stx)
> (syntax-case stx ()
> ((_ arg ...) (marker #
Thank you so much for your very quick answer.
It seems that the conversion to and from bytes are what I was looking for.
With that, it is quite easy to do all the manipulations I want.
Best,
Nicolas.
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 8 Oct 2011 17:41:35 +0100, "ni
At Sat, 8 Oct 2011 17:41:35 +0100, "nicolas.o...@gmail.com" wrote:
> I am trying to write a small implementation of Protocol Buffers (
> http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ ) and I have difficulties
> with bit manipulations, especially to transform a negative integer into a
> series of bytes and ba
On Oct 8, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 10/08/2011 10:12 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>
>> (1) I do not understand Neil's problem. Say I have module A and
>> want to protect its exports from abuses by clients, say module B,
>> why do you use define/contract at all? The define/con
On 10/08/2011 10:12 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
(1) I do not understand Neil's problem. Say I have module A and
want to protect its exports from abuses by clients, say module B,
why do you use define/contract at all? The define/contract form
is for splitting modules into module-lets -- in case
Dear all,
I am trying to write a small implementation of Protocol Buffers (
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ ) and I have difficulties
with bit manipulations, especially to transform a negative integer into a
series of bytes and back.
I can not find an implementation of a non-arithmetic shift
(1) I do not understand Neil's problem. Say I have module A and
want to protect its exports from abuses by clients, say module B,
why do you use define/contract at all? The define/contract form
is for splitting modules into module-lets -- in case your module
is too large and you can't manage inv
10 matches
Mail list logo
