Re: [racket-users] Bytecode problem with fxvector inside a macro

2019-05-08 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Thu, 9 May 2019 00:15:43 +0300, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > On 5/9/19 12:04 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > Matthew, > > > > > >> The intended error here is "cannot marshal value that is embedded in > >> compiled code" at `raco make` time, because fxvectors are not supported > >> as literals. I'll fi

Re: [racket-users] Bytecode problem with fxvector inside a macro

2019-05-08 Thread Dmitry Pavlov
On 5/9/19 12:04 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: Matthew, The intended error here is "cannot marshal value that is embedded in compiled code" at `raco make` time, because fxvectors are not supported as literals. I'll fix the bytecode writer to check for this case. OK, thank you. What would you rec

Re: [racket-users] Bytecode problem with fxvector inside a macro

2019-05-08 Thread Dmitry Pavlov
Matthew, The intended error here is "cannot marshal value that is embedded in compiled code" at `raco make` time, because fxvectors are not supported as literals. I'll fix the bytecode writer to check for this case. OK, thank you. What would you recommend, though, to users who want fxvectors

Re: [racket-users] Bytecode problem with fxvector inside a macro

2019-05-08 Thread Matthew Flatt
The intended error here is "cannot marshal value that is embedded in compiled code" at `raco make` time, because fxvectors are not supported as literals. I'll fix the bytecode writer to check for this case. Meanwhile, the fact that non-literal values can be coerced to syntax (as long as they don't

[racket-users] Bytecode problem with fxvector inside a macro

2019-05-08 Thread Dmitry Pavlov
Hello, I would like to report something that I see as inconsistent behavior of the bytecode compiler. The following short program (an artificial minimal reproducible example) works at first, but fails after raco make. My OS is Linux. $ cat one.rkt #lang racket (require (for-syntax syntax/pars

Re: [racket-users] bugs.racket-lang.org down?

2019-05-08 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Robby just implemented that last week, actually. Sam On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:08 PM Jordan Johnson wrote: > > On 8 May 2019, at 11:53, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > bugs.racket-lang.org was hosted on a server at Northeastern, which > died recently (this resulted in a number of other problems a

Re: [racket-users] bugs.racket-lang.org down?

2019-05-08 Thread Jordan Johnson
On 8 May 2019, at 11:53, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > bugs.racket-lang.org was hosted on a server at Northeastern, which > died recently (this resulted in a number of other problems as well). > While we will bring back that data, I would encourage you to submit > bugs at https://github.com/racket/

Re: [racket-users] bugs.racket-lang.org down?

2019-05-08 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
bugs.racket-lang.org was hosted on a server at Northeastern, which died recently (this resulted in a number of other problems as well). While we will bring back that data, I would encourage you to submit bugs at https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/new. Sam On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:51 PM Jorda

[racket-users] bugs.racket-lang.org down?

2019-05-08 Thread Jordan Johnson
Hi all, I’m unsuccessful in connecting to bugs.racket-lang.org, and downforeveryoneorjustme.com also reports it being down. Is the web server there not running for some reason? Best, Jordan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To

Re: [racket-users] Redex compatible closure of mutually defined nonterminals

2019-05-08 Thread William J. Bowman
Yeah, I think I would be. On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:13:12AM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > Hi William: are you agreeing that if redex added a new pattern that > you would be in good shape or not? > > Thanks, > Robby > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:05 AM William J. Bowman > wrote: > > > > On Wed,

Re: [racket-users] Redex compatible closure of mutually defined nonterminals

2019-05-08 Thread Robby Findler
Hi William: are you agreeing that if redex added a new pattern that you would be in good shape or not? Thanks, Robby On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:05 AM William J. Bowman wrote: > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 08:31:26AM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:19 PM William J. Bowman

Re: [racket-users] Redex compatible closure of mutually defined nonterminals

2019-05-08 Thread William J. Bowman
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 08:31:26AM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:19 PM William J. Bowman > wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:55:09PM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > > > I can agree that the current definition isn't the best one, but this > > > one doesn't seem right

Re: [racket-users] Redex compatible closure of mutually defined nonterminals

2019-05-08 Thread Robby Findler
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:19 PM William J. Bowman wrote: > > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:55:09PM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > > I can agree that the current definition isn't the best one, but this > > one doesn't seem right. I mean, this requires that both sides step? It > > is a kind of parallel

[racket-users] [TFPIE'19] Final call for papers: Trends in Functional Programming in Education 2019, 11 June 2019, Vancouver, BC, CA

2019-05-08 Thread p.achten
TFPIE 2019 Call for papers http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hage0101/tfpie2019/index.html (June 11th, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Canada, co-located with TFP 2019) TFPIE 2019 welcomes submissions describing techniques used in the classroom, tools used in and/or developed for the cl

[racket-users] [TFP'19] final call for papers (deadline extension): Trends in Functional Programming 2019, 12-14 June 2019, Vancouver, BC, CA

2019-05-08 Thread p.achten
F I N A L C A L L F O R P A P E R S == TFP 2019 == 20th Symposium on Trends in Functional Programming 12-14 Ju