On 04/03/18 13:31, Prabhakar Ragde wrote:
>
> I used Racket with both my children at age 9. Here is a short writeup
> about it originally posted to this mailing list.
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20080612194829/http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/class/hs/testimonials/prabhakar.shtml
>
> In answ
On 05/03/18 17:42, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>> OK, doing racket -l errortrace -t as suggested in
>> http://docs.racket-lang.org/errortrace/quick-instructions.html helps.
>
> The equivalent in racket-mode is to set `racket-error-context` to `'high`:
>
>
> https://github.com/greghendershott/ra
On 05/03/18 16:20, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> All debugging aids impose a performance penalty. Always.
>
>
Well, maybe I didn't clarify my comment. However, setting -g on a gcc
build does not impose performance penalties. Simply adds debug
information (making compile-time slower and execu
On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:36:09 PM UTC, Alexis King wrote:
> I will say this, however: while I have developed over the years a
reasonably
> strong intuition for how Racket macros operate, when I was learning the
macro
> system for the first time, I did not find some parts of the hygiene
algo
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:13:51PM -0500, 'John Clements' via Racket Users
wrote:
> > Mathematics is fascinating. It's repetitive arithmetic practice that's
> > completely, totally boring and designed to inculcate hatred of the
> > subject.
>
> “designed” ?
That is an overstatement, yes.
--
+1
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 8:27 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> wrote:
>
> Speaking *only* for myself, I like the fact that raco—like git—reduces the
> impact of racket on the “global namespace” of executables. I would personally
> be happy to have racket, drracket, and raco as the on
Speaking *only* for myself, I like the fact that raco—like git—reduces the
impact of racket on the “global namespace” of executables. I would personally
be happy to have racket, drracket, and raco as the only executables.
John
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) wrote:
>
> I've
On Mar 5, 2018, at 4:00 PM, Alex Harsanyi wrote:
> If you want to look at a possible implementation, I wrote a wrapper around
> list-box% for exactly the purpose of showing SQL query results in a
> list-box%. It supports sorting, adding, deleting and updating individual
> rows, and you can al
For those interested, it turns out you can get a loose approximation of
the van Tonder system in Racket in just a few dozen lines of code.
Namely, you can write a helper that undoes the macro-introduction scope
added by the Racket macro system:
(begin-for-syntax
(define ((make-unscoped-t
You can get the number of rows by calling `get-number` which is an
inherited method from list-control<%>. However, you probably want to keep
the data separate from the list box and sort that: the list box always
contains strings, but your data type might be a number and you want to sort
it as
I've been meaning to ask this: What's the scope of raco? Where does the
community think the line is drawn between what belongs in raco and what
doesn't?
--
/c
On Mar 6, 2018 3:35 AM, "Leif Andersen" wrote:
Probably just no one has bothered. Adding the following to the
`slideshow-exe/slidesh
Probably just no one has bothered. Adding the following to the
`slideshow-exe/slideshow` info file adds slideshow to `raco`.
```
(define raco-commands '(("slideshow"
slideshow/start
"render a Slideshow document"
#f)))
```
I went looking for the standalone slideshow->pdf converter today, and was
mystified that it didn’t appear in the list of raco commands.
Eventually, I realized that it’s actually its own executable, and has been
since before ‘raco’ even existed.
Wouldn’t it make more sense for slideshow to be a
Thank you to both of you for your detailed responses! I think this is
all fascinating.
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 05:18, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>
> 1. Yes. To me, at least :) That aspect of hygiene is triggered by a
> macro expansion step, and the macro expansion step also defines the
> boundary of its
Lets not meander off the question, shall we?
For an intro to programming - quickly seeing what and why happens trumps
things like S-expressions vs identation, functional vs imperative, name it.
What matters is that kids can form some mental model of what is happening
and why. Thus feedback matters
I'm working on something which is leading to a cascade of questions so I
suppose that I should just start by explaining what I am trying to do. I have
written some code which takes the results of an SQL query and displays it as a
table in a GUI using list-box%. This works and I am now writing
> Mathematics is fascinating. It's repetitive arithmetic practice that's
> completely, totally boring and designed to inculcate hatred of the
> subject.
“designed” ?
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from
When I started programming, debuggers seemed like magic.
Eventually I realized that a debugger "just" rewrites your program
into a debug-able (e.g. trace-able and/or step-able) version of your
program.[^1]
Which means a more complicated -- and without hardware assistance,
significantly slower --
> OK, doing racket -l errortrace -t as suggested in
> http://docs.racket-lang.org/errortrace/quick-instructions.html helps.
The equivalent in racket-mode is to set `racket-error-context` to `'high`:
https://github.com/greghendershott/racket-mode/blob/master/Reference.md#racket-error-context
All debugging aids impose a performance penalty. Always.
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 10:07 AM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 05/03/18 15:28, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users wrote:
>>
>> Is there anything I can try to improve backtrace generation?
>>
>
> OK, doing racket -l
On 05/03/18 15:28, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users wrote:
>
> Is there anything I can try to improve backtrace generation?
>
OK, doing racket -l errortrace -t as suggested in
http://docs.racket-lang.org/errortrace/quick-instructions.html helps.
Does errortrace introduce a performance penalty
At Sun, 4 Mar 2018 20:01:56 -0800, Alexis King wrote:
> While it’s a bit of a tangent, I’d be quite interested to finding more
> information on this alternate model of hygiene from anyone familiar with
> the tradeoffs (the SRFI that describes it does not include much in the
> way of comparisons). A
Hi,
I have been using Greg's racket mode and racket on the command line to
start my application. One of the most frustrating/infuriating things
about full time racket programming at the moment is debugging.
For example, here's a run of my program:
$ racket /var/tmp/lt15198411601519841160715/0/dri
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:47:13AM -0800, HiPhish wrote:
>
> As for Racket, I'm not quite sure. I think the S-expression syntax,
> immutability and functional programming are a bit harder to wrap your mind
> around than the usual way of giving the computer a sequence of instructions
> to
> follow
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 4:47 AM, HiPhish wrote:
>
> As for Racket, I'm not quite sure. ...
> immutability and functional programming are a bit harder to wrap your mind
> around than the usual way of giving the computer a sequence of instructions to
> follow.
Do you also think that calculating is h
On 03/04/2018 09:40 PM, Alexis King wrote:
[... context ...]
Still, with all this context out of the way, my questions are
comparatively short:
1. Is this lack of hygiene well-known? I did not find anything in
Ryan’s dissertation that explicitly dealt with the question, but I
did
I am not a father, so take everything with a grain of salt from me. Also,
obvious disclaimer, every child is different, you know your children best,
and
all the usual stuff...
With that out of the way, I think computer illiteracy is one of the big
injustices that gets perpetrated in our modern so
27 matches
Mail list logo
