https://github.com/Seanner/RCRPG/blob/master/mud.rkt
It's pretty minimal (polished only to not crash on bad user input) so if
anybody wants to mess with it before I upload it, please feel free. There
are a few things that are seemingly illogical like using one-shot macros
that take up more code t
In order to require an extension, your racket file must have a subdirectory
called "compiled" where your shared objects live. What if I wanted my
extension to be visible every? Where is the best place to put my extension
in the racket directory?
Thanks
Racket Users list:
h
Has anyone else experienced Dr Racket freezing for Mac OS X 64-bit v5.93 when
the memory limit is set to 8MB?
Thanks!
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
To Mr. Vincent:
Thanks for telling me.
Yeah, I've already checked `math/array' library.
But it says it is basically for typed racket, and I was not sure it is
suitable for game writing in order to manage the location of the objects;
so this time I decided to skip to use the library.
To Mr. Hende
Thank you. Is this behavior the result of a general rule of syntax
transformation (that I have heretofore been unfamiliar with) or is it a special
rule about the behavior of #%top (or should I say, the #%top family).
On Feb 7, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> They're different `#%top`
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:51:17AM -0600, Lawrence Bottorff wrote:
> AFAIK, recursion is must-do pillar of the functional style . . . and that
> is why tail recursion came along to solve the real-world problem of the
> overflowing stack. Likewise "I/O" is antithetical to functional . . . so,
> obvi
The `=defun` macro introduces the `*cont*` binding as the argument of
`=foo`. Hygienic macro expansion ensures that this macro-introduced
bindings does not capture uses of `*cont*` that appear in the macro
use. Specifically, the `*cont*` in
(=defun (foo x) *cont*)
refers to the module-level de
They're different `#%top`s.
In the the macro stepper, click on the first `#%top`, and the panel on
the right tells you that it comes from "bound.rkt". When you click on
the second `#%top`, though, the panel shows that it comes from
'#%kernel via `racket`.
At Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:24:36 -0800, Matthe
Last thing. This solution seems to work, but I can't figure out WHY it works.
If I look at these two lines in the macro expander, where bar is unbound:
(bar "hello")
((bound/c bar) "hello")))
First step makes sense: bar is replaced with (#%top . bar).
((#%top . bar) "hello")
((bound/c bar) "hel
AFAIK, recursion is must-do pillar of the functional style . . . and that
is why tail recursion came along to solve the real-world problem of the
overflowing stack. Likewise "I/O" is antithetical to functional . . . so,
obviously, data needs to be somehow quasi "live" and not "off site," not
discre
Did you have a look at the excellent `math/array' library? Its arrays
are immutable by default.
Vincent
At Fri, 7 Feb 2014 08:22:22 +0900,
亀田馬志 wrote:
>
> Hello. I have a problem around how to use syntax-case.
>
> Here's a situation.
> I'm using SRFI-25, the array library. It is useful; howev
I’m trying to resolve why I get differing results in a let form when using a
macro versus using the expanded function version. Here’s an example using
racket 5.93:
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax racket/syntax))
(define *cont* identity)
(define-syntax (=defun stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
Hi Gustavo
I'll do a fuller "YouPatch story (tech Geek edition)" hopefully soon, but
would prefer to submit to Hacker News a little bit down the track when the
site has evolved a bit more, and there's more stuff of general interest for
the HN audience. I actually think the most interesting parts o
13 matches
Mail list logo
