On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:30 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> wrote:
>>
>> IIUC, it sounds like both you and Sam are suggesting the same
>> thing. I think this *could* cause backward incompatibility for the
>> *probably empty* set
> On May 4, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:30 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Clements
>>> wrote:
So, I’d say this is basi
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:30 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users
wrote:
>
>> On May 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Clements
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, I’d say this is basically an ergonomics issue. If we change this
>>> code to raise a new excepti
> On May 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Clements
> wrote:
>>
>> So, I’d say this is basically an ergonomics issue. If we change this
>> code to raise a new exception, then it might potentially confuse a
>> handin-server-checker-writer, who ex
> On May 4, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> I am opposed to breaking backwards compatibility for this.
>
> However, one possibility would be to do the thing I suggested _iff_
> the exception is non-transparent. Then everything that works would
> keep working, and future issues
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
> So, I’d say this is basically an ergonomics issue. If we change this
> code to raise a new exception, then it might potentially confuse a
> handin-server-checker-writer, who expects (e.g.) to see a
> ‘exn:fail:contract:variable?’ but actuall
I am opposed to breaking backwards compatibility for this.
However, one possibility would be to do the thing I suggested _iff_
the exception is non-transparent. Then everything that works would
keep working, and future issues like this would not arise.
Sam
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, 'John C
> On May 4, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:14 PM, John Clements
> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 4, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking
>>> seems wrong to me. If it wants a
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:14 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
>> On May 4, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>
>> That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking
>> seems wrong to me. If it wants an exception with a different message,
>> it should just create that, rath
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:14 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users
wrote:
>
>> On May 4, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>
>> That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking seems
>> wrong to me. If it wants an exception with a different message, it should
>> j
> On May 4, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking seems
> wrong to me. If it wants an exception with a different message, it should
> just create that, rather than assuming that all exception structures are
> rea
That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking seems
wrong to me. If it wants an exception with a different message, it should
just create that, rather than assuming that all exception structures are
reasonable to modify.
Sam
On Wed, May 4, 2016, 12:52 PM 'John Clements' vi
Bump.
Okay if I make a pull request to make ‘match’ exceptions transparent? I see
that all of the ones listed in 10.2.5 are transparent.
John
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:08 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
>> wrote:
>>
>> The exceptions raised
Thanks!
--
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, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On May 4, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Denis Fadeev wrote:
>
>>
>> How can I bind values in the second for/list the same way I did in the first
>> for list. Can I convert some-list-of-vectors to a sequence?
You can use `for*/list` with `in-value` to avoid `match-define`:
;
#lang racket
(defin
That's better than vector-ref:
,@(for/list (((some-string some-list-of-vectors) (in-query ... #:group ...)
`(h1 ,(~a some-string))
,@(for/list (((some-vector) some-list-of-vectors))
(match-define (vector some-string2 some-string3) some-vector)
Hi,
I'm querying a DB using in-query with #:group. For every iteration it returns
multiple values, which i bind to some-string and some-list-of-vectors. Next, I
iterate through some-list-of-vectors, but some-list-of-vectors is no sequence,
so I can't bind multiple values like I did in the first
17 matches
Mail list logo
