On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Mangpo Phitchaya Phothilimthana
wrote:
> That's not ideal because if there is white space after BB#0:, it will match
> COMMENT again. Is there a better way to do this?
Factor out the difference?
(line-comment (re-: (re-& (re-: ";" (re-* (char-complement #\newline
That's not ideal because if there is white space after BB#0:, it will match
COMMENT again. Is there a better way to do this?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> Sorry, I sent that early by mistake. More below:
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> > You
Sorry, I sent that early by mistake. More below:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> Your example string is "\n; BB#0;\n"
> So, I'd expect the lexer to match:
> - whitespace
> - line-comment
>
> Yes, `block-comment` matches, but `line-comment'
... gives the longer match, becau
Your example string is "\n; BB#0;\n"
So, I'd expect the lexer to match:
- whitespace
- line-comment
Yes, `block-comment` matches, but `line-comment
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Mangpo Phitchaya Phothilimthana
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I try to write a lexer and parser, but I cannot figure out how to
Hi,
I try to write a lexer and parser, but I cannot figure out how to set
priority to lexer's tokens. My simplified lexer (shown below) has only 2
tokens BLOCK, and COMMENT. BLOCK is in fact a subset of COMMENT. BLOCK
appears first in the lexer, but when I parse something that matches BLOCK,
it al
OK. I am beginning to wonder whether we're missing something in the contract
world.
On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> De-serializing an array of numbers and then passing it to typed code
> would produce a wrapper, not a first-order check, and so would be very
> e
De-serializing an array of numbers and then passing it to typed code
would produce a wrapper, not a first-order check, and so would be very
expensive.
What you want is something that can tell that the untyped reference is
dead after value is passed to typed code, so that a first-order check
can be
This could be made to typecheck via a variety of methods:
- We could add something ad-hoc to `vector-ref`.
- We could add use-site variance to Typed Racket, so that it could
tell that `vector-ref` is covariant (while `vector-set!` would be
contra-variant).
- We could do something less ad-hoc that
That really depends what the contracts are, and if they're first-order.
Sam
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Will these costs dominate the cost of I/O here?
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, I think that strategy
Let's assume we serialize arrays of numbers, which is what I assume the
background to the question is. In that case, the answer isn't all that obvious
to me.
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> That really depends what the contracts are, and if they're first-order.
Will these costs dominate the cost of I/O here?
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think that strategy would incur substantial overhead
> for things like serialization of large arrays.
>
> Sam
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Matthias Felleisen
On 07/20/2014 02:08 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
I ran into this when trying to do vector-ref on a value of type
In-Indexes from math/array.
If I do something like this:
#lang typed/racket
(: v : (U (Vectorof Index)
(Vectorof Integer)))
(define v #(0))
(ann (vector-ref v 0) Integ
Unfortunately, I think that strategy would incur substantial overhead
for things like serialization of large arrays.
Sam
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
>
>> On 07/16/2014 10:25 AM, Berthold Bäuml wrote:
>>> Hi,
>
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 07/16/2014 10:25 AM, Berthold Bäuml wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> will there be serialization support for math/array and math/matrix in the
>> near future? As far as I understand in principle it should be possible at
>> leas in a straight forward
On 07/16/2014 10:25 AM, Berthold Bäuml wrote:
Hi,
will there be serialization support for math/array and math/matrix in the near
future? As far as I understand in principle it should be possible at leas in a
straight forward way as there are already the routines array->list and
list->array.
Wow, quick work! Thanks :)
One of the many things that drew me to Racket was seeing Eli's relentless
announcements of new Racket releases on comp.lang.lisp, and elsewhere, over the
years which left an impression of a language that is being, and likely to
continue to be, actively developed. Ther
16 matches
Mail list logo
