On May 15, 2019, at 11:25 PM, Daniel Lister wrote:
> I do my racket projects using android with an external keyboard plugged in as
> well, here's how I do it:
>
> -Install termux
> -Inside termux, do a pkg install unstable-repo
> -You can now install racket
>
> I haven't had any issues so far
I do my racket projects using android with an external keyboard plugged in
as well, here's how I do it:
-Install termux
-Inside termux, do a pkg install unstable-repo
-You can now install racket
I haven't had any issues so far working this way.
-Daniel
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 8:26:01 AM U
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 18:25 -0400, James Platt wrote:
> I'm looking at the idea of writing Racket code on an ARM device.
> Specifically, I have a tablet, which shipped with Android, with an external
> keyboard. I have a few questions but I think I should start with the most
> fundamental.
I'm looking at the idea of writing Racket code on an ARM device. Specifically,
I have a tablet, which shipped with Android, with an external keyboard. I
have a few questions but I think I should start with the most fundamental. Is
Lineage OS the best choice or would something else be better
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:59 PM Stephen Chang wrote:
> > For the same reasons I would use a `let` around a code block -- it's an
> easy way to isolate computation and create reusable elements. What would a
> more normal way be when using syntax-parse?
>
> The #:with syntax-parse "pattern direct
> On May 15, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Josh Rubin wrote:
>
> Type inference; laziness as the default; the language forces me to think in a
> different way than racket (or scheme) makes me think.
>
> The examples I have seen have a breath-taking level of abstraction that
> appeals to the mathematici
--
Racket version 7.3 is now available from
https://racket-lang.org/
Racket-on-Chez continues to improve. Snapshot builds are currently
available at pre.racket-lang.org, and we expect that Racket-on-Chez
will be included as a
Type inference; laziness as the default; the language forces me to think
in a different way than racket (or scheme) makes me think.
The examples I have seen have a breath-taking level of abstraction that
appeals to the mathematician in me.
On 5/15/2019 12:46 PM, David Storrs wrote:
What spec
> For the same reasons I would use a `let` around a code block -- it's an easy
> way to isolate computation and create reusable elements. What would a more
> normal way be when using syntax-parse?
The #:with syntax-parse "pattern directive" does the same thing, but
with less parens.
https://doc
What specific feature does Haskell offer that makes you select it for this
purpose as opposed to a different language? It's possible that some other
language (e.g. Racket) offers that feature and also others.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:23 AM Josh Rubin wrote:
> It just occurred to me that Haske
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:48 AM Stephen Chang wrote:
> answer 1) You are missing a dot in (~@ propthing), ie this will work:
> (~@ . propthing)
>
Ah, nice I missed that in the docs. Thanks, Stephen.
> minor question) is there a reason you are using with-syntax with
> syntax-parse?
>
For the
Issue 8 is here.
http://racket-news.com/2019/05/racket-news-issue-8.html
Ristretto time, enjoy!
--
Paulo Matos
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
t
answer 1) You are missing a dot in (~@ propthing), ie this will work:
(~@ . propthing)
minor question) is there a reason you are using with-syntax with syntax-parse?
answer 2) You may want to try "attribute". It's somewhat like
"syntax", except it returns false when there are unbound patvars, eg:
I'd like to find a general mechanism, when writing macro code, to say "If
this optional argument was supplied, generate this code. If not, generate
this other code", where "this other code" might be nothing at all. I feel
like this should be simple, but my brain is failing.
As an example, consid
14 matches
Mail list logo
