[racket] Boston Lisp Meeting: Thursday 2012-08-30 informal meeting, no speaker

Boston Lisp Meeting: Thursday 2012-08-30 Informal Meeting Only - No Scheduled Speaker http://fare.livejournal.com/tag/boston-lisp-meeting A Boston Lisp Meeting will take place on Thursday, August 30th 2012

Re: [racket] wikipedia on IDE's

On Fri, Aug 24 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > Geiser is it. Thanks. I've updated the details for Geiser in the Wikipedia page on IDE comparison [0]. Thanks! Cheers, jao [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_integrated_development_environments#Racket Racket

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

No they are just special instances of 'side' but I think for all of these keywords would be better. On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > Where is a binding form. > > Did you mean #:when and #:unless to be binding forms or not? > > Robby > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, M

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

Where is a binding form. Did you mean #:when and #:unless to be binding forms or not? Robby On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > Good enough. I thought of using 'where' but 'side' is better. > > > On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> (define-judgment-

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

Good enough. I thought of using 'where' but 'side' is better. On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > (define-judgment-form L > #:mode (-> I O) > [(-> e v) > (side-condition (positive-nat v)) > --- > (foo e bar e_1) -> (v e_1)] > > (define-metafunct

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Matthias Felleisen >>

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

p.s. and you really want to say 'when' and 'unless' in the rules I suggested, and they do need proper type setting. On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Matthias Felleisen > wrote: >> >> On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> >>

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

keywords sound wonderful. On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Matthias Felleisen > wrote: >> >> On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> >>> Sorry, no. I am saying that someone could write an actual >>> judgment-form named 'when' o

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> Sorry, no. I am saying that someone could write an actual >> judgment-form named 'when' or 'unless'. And then they wouldn't be able >> to use it in a premise. >> >> Just like curre

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > Sorry, no. I am saying that someone could write an actual > judgment-form named 'when' or 'unless'. And then they wouldn't be able > to use it in a premise. > > Just like currently if someone defines a judgment-form named 'where' > they cannot

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Matthias Felleisen >>

Re: [racket] (where-not ...) in Redex

On Aug 26, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Matthias Felleisen > > wrote: > >> > >> I would almost prefer the use of 'when' for 'whe

Re: [racket] color does not match like other structs

Thanks, Danny. This fix seems fine if you're willing to dial up to #lang racket, but I'm interested in doing this in *SL, for my students (for whom syntactic consistency is desirable and very important). I suppose I could build my own variant of 2htdp/image which includes the require you give he

Re: [racket] color does not match like other structs

On Aug 29, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Danny Yoo wrote: > I think part of what was interfering with what you were doing earlier > is that the 'color' structure isn't exposed as a structure in > 2htdp/image, but instead is exposed as a HTDP-level primitive. Which begs the question: why did matching on "mak

Re: [racket] color does not match like other structs

> This came up perhaps a year ago; I'm writing about pattern matching with the > color struct that comes with 2htdp/image. It is inconsistent with struct > matching generally. > > In the following excerpt, bar and baz are fine, but foo (commented out) > causes an error (match: color does not refer

[racket] color does not match like other structs

Hi all -- This came up perhaps a year ago; I'm writing about pattern matching with the color struct that comes with 2htdp/image. It is inconsistent with struct matching generally. In the following excerpt, bar and baz are fine, but foo (commented out) causes an error (match: color does not ref

Re: [racket] Template Variables

In part I, HtDP introduces the idea of a template (see sections whose title is Designing Foo). In its most basic form, a template looks like this: (define (f x) ) To make sure you can evaluate a definitions area that contains such templates, say (define (f x) ) (check-expect (g

[racket] Template Variables

I am working the HtDP, and I have a question about Beginning Student Language description on http://docs.racket-lang.org/htdp-langs/beginner.html . Section 1.2 describes "Template Variables", which are a series of dots. Wh

Re: [racket] Strange difference between (define (for-syntax)) and (define-for-syntax)

Danny, Is require-for-syntax even a form in #lang racket? I thought it doesn't exist outside the mzscheme legacy language, at least according to http://docs.racket-lang.org/mzscheme/Old_Syntactic_Forms.html#(form._((lib._mzscheme/main..rkt)._require-for-syntax)) I agree with you. It is strang

Re: [racket] Strange difference between (define (for-syntax)) and (define-for-syntax)

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > Hello, > > I just came across a strange error: > > #lang racket > > ;(require (for-syntax (only-in ffi/unsafe ctype-sizeof _pointer))) > (require-for-syntax (only-in ffi/unsafe ctype-sizeof _pointer)) > > Hi Dmitry, Is require-for-syntax even

[racket] Strange difference between (define (for-syntax)) and (define-for-syntax)

Hello, I just came across a strange error: #lang racket ;(require (for-syntax (only-in ffi/unsafe ctype-sizeof _pointer))) (require-for-syntax (only-in ffi/unsafe ctype-sizeof _pointer)) (define-for-syntax (os-bitness) (let ((ptrsize (ctype-sizeof _pointer))) (case ptrsize ((4) 32)