Hello all!
I have a question regarding how sequence abstraction works in TR. In the
sequence part of the docs it says that a sequence can consist of lists or
vectors among other things. But does this make a function which ideally accepts
a (Listof a) to accept something that is declared as a (S
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 2:59 AM, Jan Hondebrink wrote:
>
> Testing top-interaction with expression: (#%top-interaction + 1 2)
> . +: unbound identifier;
> also, no #%app syntax transformer is bound in: +
>
> So when you pass an expression through to the racket/base #%module-begin, it
> can use t
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Philip McGrath wrote:
>
> Using expr/c to attach a contract to a macro sub-pattern doesn't seem to work
> with ~optional, even when the attribute is bound with #:defaults.
>
> For example, this program:
> #lang racket
> (require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
> (de
Using expr/c to attach a contract to a macro sub-pattern doesn't seem to
work with ~optional, even when the attribute is bound with #:defaults.
For example, this program:
> #lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
> (define-syntax (example stx)
> (syntax-parse stx
> [(_ (~optional
Hi -
I have code to precompile a set of files that looks like this:
http://pasterack.org/pastes/97351
Note in this example the given file doesn't exist.
How can I get better info from the build process? Is my logging mechanism
broken? It doesn't ever get any messages back.
And, relatedly,
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 6:46:24 PM UTC+1, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> > This works fine in the ME-test.rkt Definition window, but not in the REPL
> > which doesn't have bindings for anything. I would like anything typed into
> > the ME-test.rkt REPL to be used as argument to the ME-module-begi
6 matches
Mail list logo
