On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 2:47:41 AM UTC+8, Dupéron Georges wrote:
> Thank you Matthew for the explanation.
>
> If I understand correctly,
>
> * Alex Harsanyi's start-up time is due to run-time (phase 0) initialisation
> code in the required libraries, including things like (define v
> costl
Hi,
...it looks like, that the REPL still states to be
verion 6.8 of racket ?
(x86_84/Linux)
Cheers
Meino
On 04/27 03:47, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> Racket version 6.9 is now available from
>
> http://racket-lang.org/
>
> ---
>
> Security Announcement:
>
> A security vulnerability in the
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Justin Zamora wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>>
>> OCaml does handle tail calls properly. But proper tails calls are not
>> the subject of this discussion. The original post was explicitly about
>> non-tail calls and how, in Racket,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>
> OCaml does handle tail calls properly. But proper tails calls are not
> the subject of this discussion. The original post was explicitly about
> non-tail calls and how, in Racket, you cannot exhaust the stack
> without exhausting all of the
On the other hand, if I recall correctly SML has the same behavior as racket. I
think the implementation uses a chain of "stacklets" that are heap allocated.
On Apr 27, 2017, 8:07 PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri , wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 0
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
>> > i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection
>> > with having such support. well, at least n
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
> > i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection
> > with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient.
>
> That would be a rather con
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
> i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection
> with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient.
That would be a rather contentious claim, as it rules out OCaml, for example.
--
You received th
i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection
with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient.
On Apr 27, 2017 4:01 PM, "brendan" wrote:
> Dr. Felleisen,
>
> Thanks for the informative response. Is Racket the only language with
> unbounded recursi
Dr. Felleisen,
Thanks for the informative response. Is Racket the only language with unbounded
recursion depth as far as you know? And with respect to implementation, can you
explain the role of the one extra bit that you mention?
A number of functional languages targeting platforms like the JV
Racket version 6.9 is now available from
http://racket-lang.org/
---
Security Announcement:
A security vulnerability in the `racket/sandbox` library and Typed
Racket allowed malicious Typed Racket code to escape the sandbox.
This vulnerability has been fixed in Racket version 6.9. Anyone us
Thank you Matthew for the explanation.
If I understand correctly,
* Alex Harsanyi's start-up time is due to run-time (phase 0) initialisation
code in the required libraries, including things like (define v
costly-expression), which look like they could be saved as constants, but
actually invol
At Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Dupéron Georges wrote:
> However, I'm not sure what operations can cause compile-time code to
> be run in this situation. My (possibly incorrect) understanding is
> that macros are executed only once (when expanding the code), but the
> code to the right-ha
13 matches
Mail list logo
