Did the behavior of XREPL's ,en change in 5.3?
I'm seeing evaluate the module only on the first ,en. I want
subsequent invocations of ,en to re-evaluate the module, as was the
case before 5.3.
Longer version:
For a long time I've had emacs set up to map the F5 key to do
something roughly simila
At Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:57:56 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Probably Racket should catch SIGTERM and SIGHUP and trigger calls to
> new handlers whose default actions call the exit handler.
On second thought, those should turn into variants of `exn:break', like
SIGINT handling.
I'll add `exn:break:
On 08/13/2012 04:41 PM, Marco Alberti wrote:
Erik,
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:32:53 +0700, Erik Dominikus wrote:
(define %a
(%rel (x)
((x) (%b x) !)
((x) (%c x)) ))
the cut in the first clause is not there in the Prolog version; hence the
different behaviour.
The problem
(We had clarified this problem in an off-line conversation. We should have
informed the list.)
On Aug 13, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Marco Alberti wrote:
> Erik,
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:32:53 +0700, Erik Dominikus wrote:
>
>
>> (define %a
>> (%rel (x)
>>((x) (%b x) !)
>>((x) (%
Erik,
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:32:53 +0700, Erik Dominikus wrote:
> (define %a
> (%rel (x)
> ((x) (%b x) !)
> ((x) (%c x)) ))
the cut in the first clause is not there in the Prolog version; hence the
different behaviour.
Racket Users list:
http://lists
I'm curious: what use cases call for the new generics as opposed to the old
class & interface system? I'm trying to get a clearer picture of the
motivation for the new functionality, and the differences between old-style
class-based OO code and this struct-based kind.
Best,
jmj
--
Sent from
As I understand it, cuts are delimited by the relations they appear in.
So it would go something more like this (using a notation I just made up):
a(X)
>
b(X) ; c(X)
>
[delimit b(1) ; b(2) ] ; c(X)
>
[delimit X=1, ! ; b(2) ] ; c(X)
>
X=1 ; c(X)
>
X=1 ; c(2)
>
X=1 ; X=2
I
The Prolog program looks like this (alpha renamed):
a(X) :- b(X).
a(Z) :- c(Z).
b(1) :- !.
b(2).
c(2).
1. a(Y) unifies with [the head of] the first line, which gives us Y = X, and
b(Y) as the goal.
2. b(Y) unifies with the third line, which gives us Y = 1.
3. Solution found: 1
4. Reject sol
Can you help me understand this example and why x should be 2? My
understanding of cut and prolog is that this should happen:
a(X)[X = _ ]
>
b(X) ; c(X) [ X = _ ]
>
b(1) ; b(2); c(X) [ X = _ ]
>
X = 1; ! ; b(2) ; c(X)[ X = _ ]
>
! ; b(2) ; c(X)
> And a terrible shame that you cannot reuse the syntax colorer we
> already have! (but you may find the source code in
> collects/syntax-color/scheme-lexer.rkt to be useful?)
Yes I suppose there's duplication among DrRacket, Quack, pygments, et
al. A central web service could be a neat way to go
At Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:50:29 -0600, Michael Wilber wrote:
> Will such custodian shutdown callbacks be run when racket receives a
> SIGTERM?
I think tat would make sense, but Racket doesn't currently try to
handle SIGTERM specially, so it defaults to abort()-like behavior.
Probably Racket should c
Its great to see someone working on this!
And a terrible shame that you cannot reuse the syntax colorer we
already have! (but you may find the source code in
collects/syntax-color/scheme-lexer.rkt to be useful?)
Robby
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Greg Hendershott
wrote:
> I spent more time
I spent more time on this, including trying to recognzie all the
variations of numbers like these:
(values
;; #b
#b1.1
#b-1.1
#b1e1
#b1/1
#b0/1
#b1e-1
#b101
#b2 ;highlight as error
;; #d
#d-1.23
#d1.123
#d1e3
#d1e-22
#d1/2
#d-1/2
#d1
#d-1
#dZ ;highlight as error
;; No # reade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10-08-12 21:14, Robby Findler wrote:
> That gets us to within a factor of 2 or 3 of the go version, I
> guess?
If the 1 minute versus 1 second is accurate, then there was a 60x
performance difference in the beginning and Matthew managed to improve
14 matches
Mail list logo
