> On 29 Jan 2017, at 11:21, Ben Greenman wrote:
>
> The third result is #f because in the third example, stx is `(annotate
> (annotate 4 2))`. So the first pattern matches and `val` is the syntax
> `(annotate 4 2)`.
>
> You can get a "strict" evaluation order by using `local-expand` inside th
Hi, Laurent,
Laurent writes:
> Hi there,
> Just FYI, for code that you want to share in a simple way, you can use
> pasterack.org (or gist.github.com ). Here's your
> code: http://pasterack.org/pastes/5961
Thanks a lot for your information :-)
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> On Sun, Jan 29, 201
Curse my sausage fingers! That last send was unintentional. I've deleted it
from the online Google Groups forum for the sake of future subscribers.
I can understand wanting to minimize the distinction and in some ways make
all core language, standard libraries, and community libraries equal.
For
I like the current structure of the docs but Ethan's comments reminded
of recent blog posts by Eric Raymond (of "Cathedral and the Bazaar"
fame), who surprisingly advocates against "swarm design". The posts
are about Rust but maybe it's something to keep in mind if the package
system gets much larg
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:06:30AM -0800, Matias Eyzaguirre wrote:
> Hullo all,
>
> I'm messing around with syntax properties to try to get a feel for them, but
> in one of my tests they aren't behaving the way I would expect them to.
>
> In my example the output is #f 1 #f, when I would have th
The third result is #f because in the third example, stx is `(annotate
(annotate 4 2))`. So the first pattern matches and `val` is the syntax
`(annotate 4 2)`.
You can get a "strict" evaluation order by using `local-expand` inside the
`annotate` macro. For example:
#lang racket
(define-syntax (a
Hullo all,
I'm messing around with syntax properties to try to get a feel for them, but in
one of my tests they aren't behaving the way I would expect them to.
In my example the output is #f 1 #f, when I would have thought it would be #f 1
2. Why is the third result #f and not 2?
#lang racket
--
Ethan Estrada | CTO & COO
M: 801-669-1598 | E: et...@metapipe.com
The Startup Building | 560 S 100 W STE 1
(sent from my phone)
On Jan 29, 2017 06:45, "Matthew Flatt" wrote:
At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), Ethan Estrada wrote:
> My only real beef with the Racket docs are the layout
Honestly I've never even thought about this. I just look at the "require"
form at the top of the docs. Since I always use racket/base as my main
language, everything feels like extra.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), Ethan Estrada
Hi there,
Just FYI, for code that you want to share in a simple way, you can use
pasterack.org (or gist.github.com ). Here's your code:
http://pasterack.org/pastes/5961
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Huang, Ying
wrote:
> Hi, All,
>
> Previously I use imapfilter (https://github.com/lefcha/ima
At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), Ethan Estrada wrote:
> My only real beef with the Racket docs are the layout of packages;
> there is no clear distinction between docs for standard library items
> and docs for community provided libs.
That's intentional. I'd say that the absence of a line
11 matches
Mail list logo
