I am having a strange issue to do with making an FFI binding to some
simple C functions which immediately result in a segmentation fault.
In these functions, all arguments are pass by value, and all return
values are values, not pointers. I am wondering if there is an issue
with the FFI that gettin
Is there any way to change a template provided with include-template
without having to restart the web server? Cache-control headers don't work.
Thanks.
--
Simon.
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
On 06/04/2012 09:50 PM, Jon Rafkind wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 09:48 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> A few minutes ago, Jon Rafkind wrote:
>>> Also that example is somewhat bizarre.. I think the (clock a ...)
>>> template should be (get-clock) instead of ((get-clock) a ...),
>>> right?
>> No -- with that ch
On 06/04/2012 09:48 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Jon Rafkind wrote:
>> Also that example is somewhat bizarre.. I think the (clock a ...)
>> template should be (get-clock) instead of ((get-clock) a ...),
>> right?
> No -- with that change you get a weird identifier macro where
>
>
A few minutes ago, Jon Rafkind wrote:
>
> Also that example is somewhat bizarre.. I think the (clock a ...)
> template should be (get-clock) instead of ((get-clock) a ...),
> right?
No -- with that change you get a weird identifier macro where
clock
evaluates to (for example) 0, and
(clock
10 minutes ago, Harry Spier wrote:
> [...]
> If I now remove the line in the macro " [(clock a ...) ((get-clock)
> a ...)]" then entering:either clock or (clock) at the evaluation
> prompt returns 0. Why is it that (clock) doesn't still fail with
> "procedure application: expected procedure, give
I think its because without the (clock a ...) pattern the input (clock) is
matched to the pattern 'clock' which matches by default. The pattern for just a
lone identifier should be (in terms of syntax/parse) 'clock:identifier'. The
docs for make-set!-transformer suggest to use a fender expressio
In section 16.1.3 of the Racket Guide there is this example and explanation:
-
(define-syntax clock
(syntax-id-rules (set!)
[(set! clock e) (put-clock! e)]
[(clock a ...) ((get-clock) a ...)]
[clock (get-clock)]))
(define-values (get-clock put-clock!)
(l
20 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > 6 hours ago, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> >> > This would be easy to play with: click the [!] and you get a
> >> > dialog with preferences.
> >>
> >> Ah, I'd never noticed the [!].
> >
> > Random thought: n
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 6 hours ago, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>> > This would be easy to play with: click the [!] and you get a
>> > dialog with preferences.
>>
>> Ah, I'd never noticed the [!].
>
> Random thought: now that a gear icon is conventional for settings,
> w
6 hours ago, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> > This would be easy to play with: click the [!] and you get a
> > dialog with preferences.
>
> Ah, I'd never noticed the [!].
Random thought: now that a gear icon is conventional for settings,
would it help if it changes to "[*]"?
> > Initially, the navig
Two hours ago, Harry Spier wrote:
>
> This works fine, but I was wondering if for readability macros could
> be use to set up a kind of "internal require" of the helper
> functions so I could have the main loop before the internal
> definitions of the helper functions it refers to.
You don't need
I have a data-structure called pixel-graph representing a collection
of graphs. The data-structure is a vector of structs, each struct
representing a node in a graph. There is a main function called
"blobify" that determines which nodes are connected in a single graph
and assigns a graph number t
> This would be easy to play with: click the [!] and you get a dialog
> with preferences.
Ah, I'd never noticed the [!].
> Initially, the navigation ">>"s used to only at the bottom so I was
> concerned to keep a size that fits vertically on most screens. Now,
> the only thing that needs to move
This time around, it turned out I needed to install the `openssl-devel' package:
$ sudo yum install openssl-devel
I'll add this to the wiki in case it helps anyone else.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Greg Hendershott
wrote:
> On Amazon Linux 64-bit using racket-5.2.1-bin-x86_64-linux-f14 (64-
> I asked about multiple-value "let"*. All I wanted was to renovate my
> kitchen, but instead you're trying to sell me a downtown penthouse. You're
> going to have to sell me on why I'd want the downtown lifestyle, and allay
> my concerns about social diseases. We could just renovate my kitchen
On Amazon Linux 64-bit using racket-5.2.1-bin-x86_64-linux-f14 (64-bit
for Fedora 14):
$ racket
Welcome to Racket v5.2.1.
-> (require openssl)
-> (define-values (in out) (ssl-connect "www.google.com" 80))
; SSLv23_client_method: implementation not found; no arguments provided [,bt
; for context]
Eli Barzilay wrote at 06/03/2012 11:25 PM:
The way I see it, there are several problems with internal `define's
as they currently stand, in decreasing order of importance:
1. Easy to make hard-to-find bugs in both code refactoring and in new
code.
I think that a lot of these problems w
18 matches
Mail list logo
