On 2014-02-14 21:29:00 -0500, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> I'm guessing the problem is that the expected type from the annotation
> of ph is not propagated correctly while the type inference system tries
> to infer the concrete type for `make-parameter`. It looks like
> something we could fix, but it mi
On 2014-02-14 20:17:44 -0500, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> This is an error:
>
> (: ph (Parameterof (HashTable Symbol String)))
> (define ph (make-parameter (make-hash)))
Here's one way to get this to typecheck:
(: ph (Parameterof (HashTable Symbol String)))
(define ph (make-parameter (a
Starting to try Typed Racket for real. It's been really fun!
Overall the error messages have been clear and helpful. Only
a couple things so far have stumped me. Here's one.
Although this is fine:
(: h (HashTable Symbol String))
(define h (make-hash))
This is an error:
(: ph (Parame
Hello.
I wrote a tiny and silly joking program as below.
;;
#lang racket
(require srfi/48)
; Data
(define *script*
#hasheq((intro . "Let me help to show you the age of marrage to be happy,
Lady!~%~%1. You need only one input later.~%2. If you'd like to step
forward, just
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:12:44 -0600
Robby Findler
wrote:
> Oh, apparently the difference you're seeing is indeed racket/match. I
> see that the contract system is already pulled in with those requires
> -- it is bigger than racket/match. (You can see what libraries are
> indirectly loaded by using
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
>
>> And while I've got your attention...
>>
>> When I tried the same thing with a smaller limit, e.g.
>>
>> > (for/sum: : Flonum [[ii : Index 8]]
>> > pi)
>>
>> I got not only the aforementioned complaint about Zero but also a
>> complain
Hi all,
A heads up for any users writing programs in Typed Racket: we just
recently merged some patches that enable prefix -> types and will be
moving towards making them the default.
If anyone has any feedback about this change, please let us know.
Concretely, this means that the type formerly
Hello,
I wonder if there is a simple way to keep the caret from blinking in
DrRacket. Any idea on how to achieve this?
Thanks,
Aramis
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
You may be interested in my graph package:
http://stchang.github.io/graph/graph.html
To install: raco pkg install graph
Example:
#lang racket
(require graph)
(define G (unweighted-graph/directed '((a b) (b c) (c d
(dag? G)
(add-directed-edge! G 'd 'a)
(dag? G)
=>
#t
#f
On Fri, Feb 14, 20
At Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:08:16 -0500,
Stephen Bloch wrote:
>
> Aha. You don't want to initialize to something inexact, because then
> the sum of a bunch of exact things would be contaminated with
> inexactness. And the only exact zero you've got isn't a Flonum.
Exactly.
> I suppose one could inv
On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Erich Rast wrote:
> I have a directed graph given as list of pairs ((from-node .
> to-node) ...) and need to detect whether adding a pair would create a
> cycle.
>
> Is there an easy way to do this already, e.g. some Planet package or
> snippet someone would like to
I like this!
On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:40 AM, Erich Rast wrote:
> When debugging is enabled, DrRacket could display on-line help for
> functions in the status line while the user is typing - rather than a
> red line with errors that usually just concern unclosed parens. What I
> mean is a one-line
In the definitions window,
(define eval (lambda () eval))
is a definition that refers to itself, because the definition shadows
the `eval` that is imported by `#lang racket`.
In the interactions window, the `(lambda () eval)` part is compiled
before the definition takes effect, so that the de
I have a directed graph given as list of pairs ((from-node .
to-node) ...) and need to detect whether adding a pair would create a
cycle.
Is there an easy way to do this already, e.g. some Planet package or
snippet someone would like to share?
I don't want to reinvent the wheel and this is not a
Dear all
I was wondering if anyone could explain me what the difference is in semantics
between evaluating a function definition in the "interactions window" versus
evaluating the same definition in the "definitions window"?
The motivation of my question is the following small Racket program, whi
When debugging is enabled, DrRacket could display on-line help for
functions in the status line while the user is typing - rather than a
red line with errors that usually just concern unclosed parens. What I
mean is a one-line autocomplete in the status line that provides the
first matching definit
16 matches
Mail list logo
