Two days ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> Sure, they are collected. This returns #f when I run it for the last
> result. [...]
Another way to see this is the fact that sandboxes work fine -- each
sandbox obviously has its own namespace.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) E
ryanc/db.plt jaymccarthy/opencl.plt and jaymccarthy/zeromq.plt all have it.
I stopped searching at that point.
Robby
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> On 2013-02-10 9:00 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > I think that's likely to be right for all platforms where Racket runs
On 2013-02-10 9:00 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think that's likely to be right for all platforms where Racket runs,
> but we should define it in one place.
Cool.
> Should we add `_size' to `ffi/unsafe', risking collisions with existing
> code?
This sounds best to me. (And while I think it shoul
On Feb 10, 2013 5:51 PM, "Da Gamer" wrote:
> Third, as someone who hasn't been in the Racket community long but knows
that it is a Scheme variant, I don't see why there is an issue of asking
such a question. Is there any need to be defensive and hostile? I can't see
the idea being that outrageous,
Perhaps I'm just losing my touch online. I'll be trolling blog comments
next
Youtube, here I come!
Norman
--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
Hi Da Gamer:
I understood you to be asking an engineering question and let me try to
answer it that way. No. No chance. Why? Because something like 15 years of
solid engineering effort have gone into the implementation of the runtime
system and so changing it in a fundamental way like that would
Sorry, Norman. Thanks for the kind words and the clarification!
Robby
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Norman Gray wrote:
>
> Robby (and Matthias), hello.
>
> On 2013 Feb 10, at 21:05, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>
> > Is this intended to be sarcastic? Do you believe the creators of
> something (t
No defensiveness on our side.
We are Racket and that's all, no more and no less. -- Matthias
On Feb 10, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Da Gamer wrote:
> I'm not sure if you misread my question, but I'll reclarify what I said.
>
> First, I know that Racket is its own language.
>
> Second, I'm not tal
I had no problem with your comment.
My reply was somewhat tongue in cheek (though I really don't like Che Guevara).
I do like the idea of liberating languages that are hiding in all kinds of
places and thats' what Racket is about.
-- Matthias
On Feb 10, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Norman Gray wro
Robby (and Matthias), hello.
On 2013 Feb 10, at 21:05, Robby Findler wrote:
> Is this intended to be sarcastic? Do you believe the creators of something
> (that they give away even) are not free to plan for its future?
Sarcastic? Ermmm, no, it was not intended to be sarcastic. Really not.
I'm not sure if you misread my question, but I'll reclarify what I said.
First, I know that Racket is its own language.
Second, I'm not talking about R6RS. I was talking about R7RS small and large.
Third, as someone who hasn't been in the Racket community long but knows that
it is a Scheme var
Nevermind, as explained by Eli on another thread I really don't need this
to accomplish the original purpose.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Ray Racine wrote:
> Is there a means to check what language a namespace is in?
>
> e.g.
>
> (namespace-language my-tr-ns) -> 'typed/racket
> (namespace-
I see myself much more as the Milton Friedman of the Lisp family than some fake
clone of a murderer-terrorist :-)
On Feb 10, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Norman Gray wrote:
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that...
>
> On 2013 Feb 10, at 17:34, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>> We view Racke
Is this intended to be sarcastic? Do you believe the creators of something
(that they give away even) are not free to plan for its future?
Robby
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Norman Gray wrote:
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that...
>
> On 2013 Feb 10, at 17:34, Matthias Felle
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that...
On 2013 Feb 10, at 17:34, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> We view Racket as a member of the Lisp family of languages that lives at the
> same level as Clojure, Common Lisp, Allegro Lisp and Franz Lisp as well as
> the Scheme branch of the family (w
On 10/02/2013 18:34, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
more). While Racket obviously inherits many traits from Scheme and while
we are obviously grateful to the Scheme branch of the family for its
inspiration, Racket is NOT Scheme and we will continue to develop the
language as we see fit.
I'm happy t
Da Gamer:
We view Racket as a member of the Lisp family of languages that lives at the
same level as Clojure, Common Lisp, Allegro Lisp and Franz Lisp as well as the
Scheme branch of the family (with its dialects such as Chez, Larceny (Common
and Otherwise), Scheme 48, Scheme 84, and 70 or s
On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2013-02-06 06:34:42 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
>> You don't get the same message-- the expected line is gone somehow.
>
> The expected line is gone here because there's no number that would make
> sense. A `(case-lambda)` has no applicabl
`define:' also works. Its syntax is a bit different from what you had,
though. Each argument is annotated with its type inside the function
header, and the return type of the function is after the `:'.
(: make-random-emetype-list (Range -> (Listof EmeType)))
(define (make-random-emetype-li
What about ffi/types, where we can add more common (and maybe system
specific) types?
Tobias
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:00:01 +0100, Matthew Flatt
wrote:
I think that's likely to be right for all platforms where Racket runs,
but we should define it in one place.
Should we add `_size' to `f
Is there a means to check what language a namespace is in?
e.g.
(namespace-language my-tr-ns) -> 'typed/racket
(namespace-language my-r-ns) -> 'racket ;; or racket/base etc.
Thanks,
Ray
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
I think that's likely to be right for all platforms where Racket runs,
but we should define it in one place.
Should we add `_size' to `ffi/unsafe', risking collisions with existing
code? Or add `ffi/size' (or `ffi/size_t')?
At Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:45:07 +0100, Tobias Hammer wrote:
> This should wor
22 matches
Mail list logo
