Actully racket pattern matching syntax has already supported recursion
scheme(catamorphism):
(define (eval-expr e)
(match e
[`(+ ,(app eval-expr e0) ,(app eval-expr e1))
(+ e0 e1)]
[`(- ,(app eval-expr e0) ,(app eval-expr e1))
(- e0 e1)]
[(? number?) e]
))
在 2019年7月1
Well! While I am sure that everyone at RacketCon has already discussed this to
death, and I’m sure there has been plenty of support to counterbalance the
tomato-throwing, let me be the first to say something positive on the mailing
list so the optics from here aren’t so gloomy: I find this idea
Hi,
I recently became interested in recursion schemes, and I noticed that
almost all implementations are in typed languages. I understand the
advantage of having an implementation using recursion at the type level,
but why is it that there are so few material in untyped languages?
For instance
tl;dr DON'T PANIC
At RacketCon today, after summarizing the state of work on Racket CS, I
recommended that we next explore the possibly of changing to an
infix-oriented syntax in "Racket2".
You can find the recording here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnz6y5U0tFs
Start at 32:27 for the part
Not willing to enter the discussion I feel incompetent about, just for a
sake of completeness I will mention another previous attempt that wasn't
mentioned before (alternative to sweet/wisp):
http://breuleux.net/blog/liso.html
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 7:44:30 PM UTC+2, cwebber wrote:
>
> The
ra...@airmail.cc writes:
> There is http://shill.seas.harvard.edu/ it runs on freebsd.
Yes, it's a good source of inspiration. However it's really meant for
shell scripting and isn't quite a good fit for the case I need, which is
for more general racket programming.
--
You received this messag
>
> (Indeed, the first thing I thought
> when I heard that this might happen was, did I make a mistake in
> shifting my work to Racket? It is unlikely I would have come to
> Racket if there wasn't an equivalent amount of elegance.)
>
I want to briefly echo this sentiment. I've
At Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:44:27 -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> The context of this email is the proposal by Matthew Flatt that we move
> to an easier-to-accept surface syntax for #lang racket2.
I appreciate your enthusiasm to get started! And I normally appreciate
concrete proposals to sol
There is http://shill.seas.harvard.edu/ it runs on freebsd.
--
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
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view th
Hi Dionna, thanks for your reply!
I gave a response to you IRL that I think I hadn't conveyed here which
is that there's a reason I'm taking the lambda-approach to capabilities
(which is explicit) vs an ambient/dynamic approach of continuation
marks. One reason is that the work I'm trying to buil
Capabilities can be tracked with continuation marks. For a language to
grant a subset of capabilities to a required module, you can do something
like contract-in that will wrap identifiers with a with-continuation-marks
capability restriction. The tricky part becomes how to make all I/O
subsystems
I sent this about 5 minutes before Jay announced
https://github.com/racket/racket2-rfcs :)
--
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
to racket-users+unsubscr.
The context of this email is the proposal by Matthew Flatt that we move
to an easier-to-accept surface syntax for #lang racket2.
Matthew Flatt has heard more than enough from me of concern about this
proposal. But I should indicate that I'm highly sympathetic to the
goal. I would like to lay out
Every day the threats facing our computing environments are getting
worse. Recent incidents in both gems and npm have shown modules
exfiltrating information from developers' machines or production
servers. It is likely that soon package managers will also be targeted
to install cryptolockers to a
Summer BOB 2019
Conference
“What happens if we simply use what’s best?”
August 21, 2019, Berlin
co-l
Thanks for the feedback. I will check to see if there's some way to query
for capabilities, but I doubt it, given the client code.
The client code does most of this version checking in one class, so that
seems localized enough and I think it will be straight forward. Maybe if I
stumble on a be
16 matches
Mail list logo
