I'm running into a problem using the ffi, and I think it has to do
with passing a struct containing a number of callbacks to a foreign
function. The foreign code hangs on to this struct and may invoke the
callbacks any number of times.
When the GC runs, things go south quickly. I'm pretty sure the
If I understand correctly you simply need your main Racket thread to
wait, for example, after your main thread calls your `start-server':
(start-server)
(displayln "Server started. Press ENTER to quit.")
(read-line)
;; End of your main RKT file
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Nathan Cam
There's a function called do-not-return (search for it), that waits on an
anonymous empty semaphore, that the Web server uses.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012/11/11, at 18:44, Nathan Campos wrote:
I'm having some fun with tcp-listen with Racket, here's the simple start
server function that I'm usin
I'm having some fun with tcp-listen with Racket, here's the simple start
server function that I'm using:
#lang racket
(define start-server
(lambda ([port 8080])
(current-custodian server-custodian)
; Caps at 50 connections at the same time
(define listener (tcp-listen port 50 #t))
(define (loo
Eli: are you saying that you think this is _not_ a bug?
(I think Racket has firmly positioned itself in the "primitive
operations in the language do the right thing or signal errors" camp,
so a performance-based concern like this seems quite out of
character.)
Robby
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:40
Hi,
I wanted procedure -procedure-rename-, but forgot its name. I looked in page
-Inferred Value Names- in the help desk, but there no mention is made of
procedure -procedure-rename-. It took me some time to find the name of the
procedure I wanted. May be a mention of -procedure-rename- in sectio
If you need a quick fix to get things going for your class, you might
consider just doing things unsafely (with a few checks where you know
they are needed). Don't use TR and then you don't get the contracts,
and you can probably get the allocation down.
Robby
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Joh
On Nov 11, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:48 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why this would be. Is the code students write unrestricted?
>>
>> Pretty much, yes. So, for instance, a student might write:
>>
>> (signal-play
>> (network ()
On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:48 PM, John Clements wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure why this would be. Is the code students write unrestricted?
>
> Pretty much, yes. So, for instance, a student might write:
>
> (signal-play
> (network ()
> [s ((looper song2))]
> [ctr ((loop-ctr 0 1))]
>
On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:07 PM, John Clements
> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>
>>> If you're calling from Racket to TR then you have the contract
>>> checking and probably the floats flowing thru th
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:07 PM, John Clements
wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> If you're calling from Racket to TR then you have the contract
>> checking and probably the floats flowing thru there need boxing.
>
> If I understand you correctly, the contract check
The problem is the `lazy-require' that commit 949d12e2c6 says "does not
seem to cause [...] trouble".
I'm not sure what changed to make the suspicious `lazy-require'
problematic after all, but I've changed `lazy-require' to fix it. It
should be ok to use `lazy-require' in `begin-for-syntax' from n
Woah, you're good Robby!
Now that you mention it, it's true that I see this blue box more often.
Well, then, if at some point you feel like coloring contracts... ;)
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Actually, the documentation blue boxes thing in the upper-right corner
> (
Actually, the documentation blue boxes thing in the upper-right corner
(is that also what you're referring to by the identifier information
rectangle) does this. I did it as kind of an experiment to see how
well that approach would work. It seems to be going okay so far, and
it could be generalized
> I'm not sure if that's the best thing, but
> the reason I did it that was was to avoid colors flashing around, as
> the check syntax information comes and goes as you edit the buffer.
>
Ah yes, there might be this problem indeed.
Maybe it could be possible to keep a "partial" state of the syntax
Boston Lisp Meeting:
Tuesday 2012-11-20
Jianshi Huang (黄澗石) on Making CL more popular for startups — the lean
approach
http://fare.livejournal.com/170092.html
A Boston Lisp Meeting
Check Syntax does have this information, but currently uses it only
for tooltips (to indicate who is to blame). Generally speaking, the
coloring is based only on lexing information (like "is this a string?"
"is this a paren?" etc). I'm not sure if that's the best thing, but
the reason I did it that
Hi,
Starting my Xmas wish list:
In case some developer doesn't know what to do (sure...), I think it would
be visually quite helpful if contracts could be syntax-colored, for example
in lighter blue. That would help quickly distinguish between the actual
code and the debugging code.
Thanks :)
Lau
Happened to me again, but this time it's not related to #%foreign:
standard-module-name-resolver: contract violation
expected: module-path?
given: ''(#%utils)
Strangely, this #%utils is not a module that I require directly or even
indirectly (the dependency browser does not show any 'utils' mo
Neil, Matthias,
Certainly not #2, and I doubt that #4 is a problem for us
(although it may be, buried somewhere in specific calculations).
#1 and #3 definitely are our case. We are doing numerical
integration of celestial bodies over large periods of time
(100 years is a norm). The forces that ac
20 matches
Mail list logo
