Here's an example:
#lang racket
(define (make-final-struct-type name count)
(define-values (type constructor predicate accessor mutator)
(make-struct-type name #f count 0))
(values (chaperone-struct-type type (λ _ (error 'fail1))
(λ _ (error 'fail2))
Look at `chaperone-struct-type`:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/chaperones.html?q=chaperone-struct-type#%28def._%28%28quote._~23~25kernel%29._chaperone-struct-type%29%29
You can just have the guard always error.
Sam
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Alex Knauth wrote:
>
>> On Nov 4, 2016,
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> Typed Racket chaperones the struct type to prevent further extension.
Ok, thanks. Where would I go to see how I would create a chaperone like this?
> Sam
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Alex Knauth wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is th
Typed Racket chaperones the struct type to prevent further extension.
Sam
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Alex Knauth wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a way to enforce that a particular struct is final, in other words,
> that no one can declare a sub-struct of it?
>
> (struct foo (a b c) #:final)
>
Hello,
Is there a way to enforce that a particular struct is final, in other words,
that no one can declare a sub-struct of it?
(struct foo (a b c) #:final)
(struct bar foo (d e f))
; should produce a syntax error similar to:
; struct: cannot inherit from the final struct foo
(make-struct-type
Hi Kelly,
The table's source is there:
https://github.com/racket/gui/blob/master/tex-table/tex-table.rkt
It doesn't look like the list is user-extensible, but you can extend it
by modifying the file.
To do so, you'd want to update the `tex-table` package to use a
from-source version (from t
I've been learning Racket for awhile now (it's the first language I've
seriously pursued), and I can usually fumble together what I need for small
projects. However, lately I've been working with Pollen, and my documents call
for a lot of math symbols. I'm wondering if there's a reasonable way t
The first result string is the first matched string. The second result is what
was matched by the sub expression in the parenthesis.
> Den 4. nov. 2016 kl. 20.04 skrev meino.cra...@gmx.de:
>
> Hi,
>
> Normally I would tend to think, that I am
> quite familiar with regex and their usage
> (bac
Hi,
Normally I would tend to think, that I am
quite familiar with regex and their usage
(background: UNIX?Linux, sed, vi/vim, Perl...)
Then I played a little with regex-match...and
I have to go to school again..,,
>From the Racket guide:
> (regexp-match #rx"([a-z ]+;)*" "lather; rinse; repeat;"
Hi George,
thanks for your reply! :)
I know Perl and its regexp quite well...so I will
go for the regexified solution first.
But...I fear I have to sort my brain first. I played around
a little with regex-match and friends...and often I dont
understand the results...
Cheers
Meino
George Neu
There really isn't a better way.
Robby
On Friday, November 4, 2016, wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> thanks for your reply! :)
>
> ...unfortunatelu this wpuld imply to implement both solution
> correctly and compare them.
> I asked here on the mailinglist fpr the better solution just
> to avoid that...
Hi David,
thanks for your reply! :)
...unfortunatelu this wpuld imply to implement both solution
correctly and compare them.
I asked here on the mailinglist fpr the better solution just
to avoid that... ;)
Cheers
Meino
David Storrs [16-11-04 17:36]:
> That's a good question -- I don't know
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 04:03:53 +0100,
meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
>I have to break down input from textfiles in lists. Due to
>missing formatting symbols like ";" (csv) I have do it more
>"analogous". ;)
>
>It can be done by regex and it can be done by line splitting,
>procesing the results (removing
13 matches
Mail list logo
