Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Matthew Flatt
I've adjusted the bytecode compiler so that it can deal with more local types. To exercise the changes, fixnum results are tracked like flonum results, although the JIT doesn't currently take advantage of fixnum annotations. Now, it should be easy to add #define SCHEME_LOCAL_TYPE_EXTNUM 3 and

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Hugh Aguilar
This "Supercomputer Toolkit" looks pretty cool! I skimmed over the article, and will read it completely later on. Am I understanding that this uses integer arithmetic? It said that it supported quad-precision 128-bit integers (four 32-bit integers concatenated). One of the cool things about For

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Ben Goetter
Hugh: > (/ 10 6) 1.7 this is what SICP says will happen (pg 5) /First edition/ of SICP. Copyright 1985, thus predating even R3RS. The language has evolved somewhat since then. Do not take the contents of SICP as Scheme canon. Ben Racket Users list: http://lis

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Greg Hendershott
> My understanding of Scheme, including Racket, is that types get converted > automatically without explicit casting. This is not an add-on for the > language, but is inherent in the language. For example: > (/ 10 6) > 5/3 this is what Gambit does > (/ 10 6) > 1 2/3this is what Ra

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Joe Marshall
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > We are doing numerical integration of celestial bodies over large > periods of time (100 years is a norm). > > I'm new to Scheme, so I may be totally wrong about this --- but, isn't a > numerical program like this exactly what Scheme is *no

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Hugh Aguilar
>OOP surely is not what we chose Racket for. My understanding of Scheme, including Racket, is that types get converted automatically without explicit casting. This is not an add-on for the language, but is inherent in the language. For example: (/ 10 6) 5/3           this is what Gambit does (/

Re: [racket] Racket macros that run on files

2012-11-14 Thread Patrick Mahoney
Thank you for the responses Vincent and Neil. Neil, thanks for the information here-I will meditate on this and how to utilize it. -Patrick On 4 November 2012 22:34, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > So you would like to be able to do things like rename an identifier, > change "(if X Y)" to "(and X Y)",

[racket] 2 keystroke keybindings disappear

2012-11-14 Thread sam
Is this expected behaviour? I'm using the customization example in the documents When I add this line instead of the last line ;(menu-bind "c:a" "Run") (menu-bind "c:x;k" "Close") all the existing control-x bindings go away. So once I do "Edit->Keybindings->Add user-defined ..." C-x:C-s i

Re: [racket] realm of racket (roar!)

2012-11-14 Thread Grant Rettke
Congrats. The Java guy should have a UML model and a couple of patterns like a HelloWorldFactory and a HelloFlyweight built in, too. giggle. On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > It is a pleasure to share some news about Realm of Racket with everyone here. > The complet

[racket] realm of racket (roar!)

2012-11-14 Thread Matthias Felleisen
It is a pleasure to share some news about Realm of Racket with everyone here. The complete draft has gone to the NoStarch copy editor, we are putting on the final touches, and we have taken our first video live: http://realmofracket.com/videos.html Stay tuned. More videos, more news, more pa

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Dmitry Pavlov
Eric, Hugh, OOP surely is not what we chose Racket for. This can lead to a lengthy discussion about the definitions of OOP, level of support of OOP in Racket according to those definitions, usefulness of OOP for different kinds of tasks, etc. I think we better skip the whole OOP topic here. We ar

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Hugh Myers
Seems to me that Moore and Rather used Moore's FORTH at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory before they started Forth Inc. So you might say that FORTH is a 'natural' for Astronomy! --hsm On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > Hendrik, > > > Is it conceivable that you need

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Dmitry Pavlov
Hendrik, > Is it conceivable that you need multiple-precision fixed-point? If would be OK in terms of numerical accuracy, but I feel that it would not be good in terms of performance. See the description for Neil Toronto's interface to MPFR: https://github.com/ntoronto/racket/blob/master/collect

Re: [racket] 80-bit precision in Racket

2012-11-14 Thread Erich Rast
Sorry, I feel the need to add my 2 cents to this. On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:43:08 -0800 (PST) Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > We are doing numerical integration of celestial bodies over large > >periods of time (100 years is a norm). > > I'm new to Scheme, so I may be totally wrong about this --- but, > i