> You could make a Racket reader that did this. Or you can find some of the
> interesting s-expression regular expression languages (I think Olin Shivers
> did one). Or just not use regexps so much
> ("http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247”).
When telling someone to avoid something useful, it
David Storrs wrote on 01/09/2016 02:34 AM:
What method would you suggest for that?
Probably regular expression. :)
Neil V.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, s
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> David Storrs wrote on 01/09/2016 01:38 AM:
>
>>
>> (regex-match*
>> #px"\[[xX\d]\]"
>> "[1] foo \n [2] bar \n [x] baz \n [X] baz \n"")
>>
>
> (regexp-match*
> #px"\\[[xX\\d]\\]"
> "[1] foo \n [2] bar \n [x] baz \n [X] baz \n")
> ;;
David Storrs wrote on 01/09/2016 01:38 AM:
(regex-match*
#px"\[[xX\d]\]"
"[1] foo \n [2] bar \n [x] baz \n [X] baz \n"")
(regexp-match*
#px"\\[[xX\\d]\\]"
"[1] foo \n [2] bar \n [x] baz \n [X] baz \n")
;;==> ("[1]" "[2]" "[x]" "[X]")
Looks like maybe a typo in the procedure name, an
I'm having some trouble with the syntax for regexen, and the docs are a bit
opaque on this point.
Given this:
(regex-match*
#px"\[[xX\d]\]"
"[1] foo \n [2] bar \n [x] baz \n [X] baz \n"")
I'm expecting it to return:
( "[1]" "[2]" "[x]" "[X]")
Instead it complains about undefined identi
Matthew Flatt wrote on 01/08/2016 10:54 PM:
Except for "https://mirror.racket-lang.org";, HTTPS content is provided
via CloudFlare from an HTTP (not HTTPS) access of S3. So, you can only
trust the content of "https://pkgs.racket-lang.org"; to the degree that
you trust Amazon, CloudFlare, and the
Sam, Ryan, I, and others have been moving Racket services to HTTPS:
https://racket-lang.org/
We're changing all references to use HTTPS, so if you go to
"http://racket-lang.org"; (no "s"), the "Download" link takes you to
"https://download.racket-lang.org/";. The default download button on
that
One problem is that you should have *two* CR-LF byte sequences to
terminate the header list in each MIME multipart part.
For example, instead of:
"--" boundary CRLF
"Content-Disposition: form-data; name=\"file\";
filename=\"And360.zip\"" CRLF
"Content-Type: application/zip" CRLF))
Hi, I have a problem when upload file through http post method. Here is my code:
#lang racket
(require net/uri-codec)
(require net/url)
(require json)
(require net/http-client)
(define (->string bs)
(if (bytes? bs)
(bytes->string/utf-8 bs)
bs))
(define (->bytes str)
(cond
[(s
My major problem is Mac, actually. We do have a Windows machine, I just prefer
to code on Linux.
And, of course, it would make things easier if I could run one command and
wait until all executables are created.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ra
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 4:40:05 PM UTC-5, Alex Knauth wrote:
> I tried doing stuff, but then I realized that there's a typo that messes this
> up.
>
> > On Jan 8, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Andrew Kent wrote:
> >
> > Any guesses why adding more indirection speeds up the code here?
> >
> > #lang r
I tried doing stuff, but then I realized that there's a typo that messes this
up.
> On Jan 8, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Andrew Kent wrote:
>
> Any guesses why adding more indirection speeds up the code here?
>
> #lang racket
>
> (define (set-members? s . xs)
> (for/and ([x (in-list xs)])
>(set-
I tried swapping the two expressions. The result is that the one
executing first is always slower than the one executing second.
So, probably the timing is dominated by some memory/GC/locality effect
rather than the difference between set-member? and set-members?
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:29 PM,
Any guesses why adding more indirection speeds up the code here?
#lang racket
(define (set-members? s . xs)
(for/and ([x (in-list xs)])
(set-member? xs x)))
(define s (set-add
(for/set ([i (in-range 1000)])
(random 1))
333))
(collect-garbage)
(time
Dear William,
You are quite right.
Sorry for the silly question and thanks for the quick reply.
E.
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 6:05:35 PM UTC-3, William J. Bowman wrote:
> ((lambda x x) (void)) returns a list containing the void object. Perhaps you
> meant (lambda (x) (begin x))
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:58:14PM -0800, Eduardo Bonelli wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why do the values of these two expressions differ?
>
> > (begin (void))
> > ((lambda x (begin x)) (void))
> '(#)
>
> In the second case, I understand that CBV would evaluate the argument
> "(void)" to obtain
Hello,
Why do the values of these two expressions differ?
> (begin (void))
> ((lambda x (begin x)) (void))
'(#)
In the second case, I understand that CBV would evaluate the argument
"(void)" to obtain the (untyped) value "#". It then passes this on to the
function "((lambda x (begin
Thanks. And like, that sounds a lot more sensible than what I'm trying to
do :)
And what I'm trying to do doesn't strike me as generally a good idea, but...
Initially I was playing around with language-stuff. Was making a language
and wanted a file written in that language to define a signature a
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I think we must be talking past each other. Let me try to back out a bit.
>
> It is my understanding that the trie library's slowness that John
> reported is all about contract overhead. Specifically, there are some
> (effectively) lazy contr
I think we must be talking past each other. Let me try to back out a bit.
It is my understanding that the trie library's slowness that John
reported is all about contract overhead. Specifically, there are some
(effectively) lazy contracts on the trie structs that pile up, leading
to surprisingly b
I thought your suggestion involved a change to TR.
But whatever. Do what you want.
Robby
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> This library isn't part of the Racket distribution, so the release schedule
> doesn't really matter here.
>
> Sam
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:42
This library isn't part of the Racket distribution, so the release schedule
doesn't really matter here.
Sam
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:42 AM Robby Findler
wrote:
> We can do the simpler thing for this release, tho. And changing TR
> won't happen for months. The simple suggestion is an easy, immed
My suggestion did involve changing TR. I think your suggestion was to
change the trie library, which doesn't have to worry about the Racket
release schedule.
Sam
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I thought your suggestion involved a change to TR.
>
> But whatever. Do what yo
We can do the simpler thing for this release, tho. And changing TR
won't happen for months. The simple suggestion is an easy, immediate
fix, and it will also give us goalposts to shoot for.
Robby
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> I think a better solution is just to ad
I think a better solution is just to add immutable hash tables to TR,
and then use them in the trie modules. That would allow TR to generate
exactly the contracts that we could write by hand.
Sam
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> We know there is a much more efficient set of
We know there is a much more efficient set of contracts than what TR
generates right? How about an unsafe export of TR functions to a wrapper
module that implements the safe checks by hand (by macro?)? Maybe that
exercise will even feed back into an improvement to TR?
Robby
On Tuesday, January 5,
This doesn't quite answer your question, but another possibility that would
allow you to separate the a@ and b@ unit implementations in separate files
is to put all of your signature definitions in a single file that will be
required by both "a.rkt" and "b.rkt". In my experience, this strategy is
f
On 2016-01-05 14:39:17 -0500, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote:
> Asumu, does this make sense to you? Note that in particular, I think that a
> warning at the top of the pfds package wouldn’t have helped me; I think a
> warning at the top of each pfds page would make a lot more sense.
I'd be
28 matches
Mail list logo
