On 3/11/19, 'John Clements' via Racket Users
wrote:
> I would suggest maybe just using racket here:
>
> #lang racket
>
> (require setup/parallel-build)
>
> (define racket-files
> (for/list ([file (in-directory "/tmp")]
> #:when (regexp-match #px"\\.rkt$" file))
> file))
>
> (par
To add one more answer to this thread :-)
In addition to compiling files specified on the command line, `raco make`
will recursively compile all files referenced via `require`. This means
that if you have a top level file for your application, you can tell `raco
make` to compile that file, and
I think the best practice (at least my usual practice these days) is
to make a package.
Say the top of your tree is /path/to/project.
Once:
raco pkg install /path/to/project
Thereafter your "make" is:
raco setup --pkgs project
This also works fine for c:\path\to\project.
(Making it a lo
I would suggest maybe just using racket here:
#lang racket
(require setup/parallel-build)
(define racket-files
(for/list ([file (in-directory "/tmp")]
#:when (regexp-match #px"\\.rkt$" file))
file))
(parallel-compile-files racket-files
#:worker-count 8
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:04 PM Brian Adkins wrote:
>
> Hmm... maybe the problem was just my lack of shell skills. I think the
> following works:
>
> raco make -j 8 */*.rkt
This will only make the rkt files in subdirectories of the current
working directory, excluding sub-subdirectories and th
On 3/11/2019 3:00 PM, Brian Adkins wrote:
I looked over the documentation for raco make, and I didn't see
anything about how to recursively make all *.rkt files in a directory
tree. I suppose I could use something like: find . -name \*.rkt |
xargs raco make, but I like being able to use all
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 3:00:34 PM UTC-4, Brian Adkins wrote:
>
> I looked over the documentation for raco make, and I didn't see anything
> about how to recursively make all *.rkt files in a directory tree. I
> suppose I could use something like: find . -name \*.rkt | xargs raco make,
> b
I looked over the documentation for raco make, and I didn't see anything
about how to recursively make all *.rkt files in a directory tree. I
suppose I could use something like: find . -name \*.rkt | xargs raco make,
but I like being able to use all 8 "cores" with -j 8, and I *think* I'd
lose
I think it's fair to say that the Racket style guide is not as rigid as
some other style guides for some other languages: as it says itself in the
introduction, it "isn’t complete and it isn’t perfect" and is more a set of
"guidelines and best practices" than binding universal rules. I think it is
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:22:48 PM UTC-4, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Brian Adkins > wrote:
> >
> > I want let semantics, but I've been using define more because it's
> preferred in the Racket style guide. I don't want the behavior of define
> above, s
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:17:08PM -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> To be fair:
>
> As a new user, it's possible to have the intuition that `define` is
> just a way to avoid indentation -- that it "writes a `let` for you,
> from the point of the define to 'the end of the enclosing scope'".
Racket
Yes, I hadn't really thought through the semantics of define (i.e. whether
it had let or letrec semantics). So, in my case, since I want let
semantics, I will use let. I'm happy to follow the Racket style guide when
I get to the point of contributing code that is covered by it, but I think
I wi
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Brian Adkins wrote:
>
> I want let semantics, but I've been using define more because it's preferred
> in the Racket style guide. I don't want the behavior of define above, so
> using letrec to get a runtime error instead of compile time error doesn't
> make s
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:13:30 PM UTC-4, Brian Adkins wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 11, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Brian Adkins wrote:
>> >
>> > I just discovered that define will fail at runtime, where let would
>>
To be fair:
As a new user, it's possible to have the intuition that `define` is
just a way to avoid indentation -- that it "writes a `let` for you,
from the point of the define to 'the end of the enclosing scope'".
And it's possible for that intuition to seem correct for a very long
time -- until
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Brian Adkins > wrote:
> >
> > I just discovered that define will fail at runtime, where let would fail
> at compile time. Besides helping to keep the indentation level from
> mar
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Brian Adkins wrote:
>
> I just discovered that define will fail at runtime, where let would fail at
> compile time. Besides helping to keep the indentation level from marching to
> the right "too much", what are the benefits of define over let?
>
> --- snip -
On 3/10/19 4:16 PM, Matt Jadud wrote:
Oh! Thank you, Matthew.
I see. So, I'm running into the sandbox... as in, the sandbox is doing
what it should, and as a result, it is preventing the networked accesses
that I've added to my documentation. That's awfully obvious (now that it
is put that wa
I just discovered that define will fail at runtime, where let would fail at
compile time. Besides helping to keep the indentation level from marching
to the right "too much", what are the benefits of define over let?
--- snip ---
#lang racket
(define (f n) (+ n 1))
(define (foo)
(define b (f
I just want to clarify that if someone finds an error in the docs or a bug,
it's perfectly fine to just send a bug report:
* Inside Racket: Go to the menu > About > Submit Bug Report ...
* In Github: Submit an "Issue"
Please include enough information to reproduce the bug. For example for a
typo
20 matches
Mail list logo
