[racket-users] Re: Redex: call for alpha-equivalence beta testers

2015-09-25 Thread Robby Findler
On Friday, September 25, 2015, Paul Stansifer wrote: > Thanks for trying it out! It's exciting to have a user! The broken example > is now fixed on GitHub. > > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 5:07:22 PM UTC-4, William J. Bowman > wrote: > > ... > > > > 1. It was not obvious to me that /binding

Re: [racket-users] Redex: call for alpha-equivalence beta testers

2015-09-25 Thread Paul Stansifer
Thanks for trying it out! It's exciting to have a user! The broken example is now fixed on GitHub. On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 5:07:22 PM UTC-4, William J. Bowman wrote: > ... > > 1. It was not obvious to me that /binding-pattern/ was not just a > grammar but a pattern. I tried to specify

Re: [racket-users] Question about structuring recursive code

2015-09-25 Thread Kaushik Ghose
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Alexis King wrote: > > Er, no you can’t... `begin` doesn’t create an internal definition context > (or even a new scope). You can use an empty `let` instead: > > (define (f x) > (if (even? x) > (/ x 2) > (let () > (define a (* x 2)) >

Re: [racket-users] Racket for Smartphone Apps

2015-09-25 Thread Marc Kaufmann
Hi all, thanks for the feedback. It seems to me that I should probably just go ahead and do an html/js website and turn into an app. The reason I think that I need an app (or something with push notifications, so email might just work) is that I am doing fine-grained time-use data -- so I wan