These procedure were necessary to represent questions like "IS THERE ANY
stack on the table onto which I could put this card?", "Is the top card
of ALL foundations a king?". If so then you have won! :-)
I think they call these quantifiers and these tend to be used as
descriptive ones, prescrip
On 07/08/2015 22:43, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
On Aug 7, 2015, at 12:27 PM, Michael Titke wrote:
I always suspected this to be a logical joke of forcing people to write their
own quantifiers and to not let them fall for predicate logic.
The best thing about a logic scheme declaring everyt
Oh, thanks!
That makes sense.
On the off chance that you have an idea, is there a good way of doing this that
doesn't require b being able to see c?
On Aug 7, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> That's an interesting attempt to exploit the mutation inherent in a
> recursive definition co
That's an interesting attempt to exploit the mutation inherent in a
recursive definition context to build a reference chain.
It doesn't work across module boundaries because the recursive binding
context doesn't extend across that boundary. The binding structure
created by your example is somethin
Hi. I have been trying to create a macro that communicates without using
mutation, but I'm having problems with communicating across multiple modules.
I have three files:
macro.rkt:
#lang racket
(provide start add)
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse racket/match racket/syntax))
(begin-for-synta
For testing purposes, I changed the permissions to "^.*" ".*" "'*" which
got rid of the error messages. However, there is still no reply eventhough
the message is received by the target computer. Hmmm, in this case both
SUB and PUB are device7 should it matter.
br, jukka
> On 08/07/2015 03:19 P
Short version: __Thank you__
It does appear that I do not need the #%module-begin rewrite in this test
case. However, the point of the language is to create a dictionary of
procedures and provide a "run" procedure which accepts a symbol and returns
the procedure in the dictionary. My concern was w
On Aug 7, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
> The definition of x in `my-module-begin` doesn't work because it comes from
> the macro's scope, not from the module's scope.
> See
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/syntax-model.html#%28part._macro-introduced-bindings%29
>
> If y
On Aug 7, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote:
> I have a minimal example that reproduces the behavior and I can track it
> down to the fact that I do not export "define" and the file which uses the
> new #lang does not define anything, except through a #%module-begin rewrite.
You shouldn't
I
have a minimal example that reproduces the behavior and I can track it
down to the fact that I do not export "define" and the file which uses the
new #lang does not define anything, except through a #%module-begin
rewrite. If the file written in the new #lang has access to define and
defines an
On 08/07/2015 03:19 PM, Jukka Tuominen wrote:
> =ERROR REPORT 7-Aug-2015::22:00:25 ===
> Channel error on connection <0.5764.4> ([client-ip]:59326 ->
> [server-ip]:61613, vhost: '/', user: 'device7'), channel 1:
> {amqp_error,access_refused,
> "access to queue 'amq.gen--sUYfl-1_IbdA
Dear crafty schemer, Micheal
Perhaps may you mistake "quantifier" and "identifier"?
I don't know about lisp, at least in C, we call the [a-zA-Z][0-9a-zA-Z]*
"identifier". And in general, "quantifier" is "any" and "exists" in math.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Aug 7, 2015, at 12:27 PM, Michael Titke wrote:
> I always suspected this to be a logical joke of forcing people to write their
> own quantifiers and to not let them fall for predicate logic.
>
> The best thing about a logic scheme declaring everything but really
> everything to be true whe
Andrew
I just want to know it. ormap is cool.
Alex
Umm, I'm thinking everyday about I change racket's (default) syntax.
But I'm afraid of lack of docs or supports.
Matthias
Thanks for correcting my mistake.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rack
That sounds weird. You shouldn't need to do anything special with
#%top-interaction or anything, so I'm not sure what's going on.
How are you defining it? Can you show us some of the source code?
On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote:
> I have a #lang I'm working on and everything se
> On 08/07/2015 12:43 PM, Jukka Tuominen wrote:
>> "Disconnected before receipt "R14642" was received"
>
> What shows up in the RabbitMQ logs around the time that the
> disconnection happens? Often a bunch of detail is logged that is not
> passed on to the connected client.
>
> Tony
I found th
I need to make an action when current custiodian shutdowns.
Now I have something like
(define (with-status main-custodian)
(define a-box (make-custodian-box (current-custodian) #t))
(parameterize ([current-custodian main-custodian])
(thread (λ ()
(sync a-box)
On 08/07/2015 12:43 PM, Jukka Tuominen wrote:
> "Disconnected before receipt "R14642" was received"
What shows up in the RabbitMQ logs around the time that the
disconnection happens? Often a bunch of detail is logged that is not
passed on to the connected client.
Tony
PS. I tried to get RabbitMQ
I have a #lang I'm working on and everything seems to be going very well. One
thing I don't understand, though, is that when a file written in this language
is opened in DrRacket and Run, I still have to (require "file.rkt") in the REPL
before I am able to use anything provided by the file.
I a
I always suspected this to be a logical joke of forcing people to write
their own quantifiers and to not let them fall for predicate logic.
The best thing about a logic scheme declaring everything but really
everything to be true when it is not false are expressions like the
following:
(when
Tony,
having experimented with your code to catch `exn:stomp` exception, this is
what I got first:
"Disconnected before receipt "R14642" was received"
There are two "sends" in the code, and it is actually the second call that
causes the error. With a single send, no error is signalled but nothi
Thanks for the suggestion,
Jos
_
From: Alexander D. Knauth [mailto:alexan...@knauth.org]
Sent: jueves, 06 de agosto de 2015 16:55
To: Jos Koot
Cc: Racket-Users List
Subject: Re: [racket-users] Distinct instantiations of modules
I think namespace-attach-module is one way to do this:
#l
22 matches
Mail list logo
