Good call, I'll add a note to the effect. Btw in case it wasn't clear from
my response, using #lang cli shouldn't affect the existing workflows that
you mentioned, although, you would probably want to define the command line
component of your code as a separate #lang cli module, rather than in a
mo
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 11:08 AM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Are there other useful variants that are not currently supported (at least
> directly)?
>
I think the answer to this is “no.” My reasoning follows.
>From the perspective of subclasses, superclass methods come in three sorts:
overridable, a
> Right, thank you for bringing that up. I should have mentioned that the #lang
> provides all of racket/base at the module level, so you can write normal
> Racket code (including `require`), and any imports at the module level would
> be available within the `program` body since it compiles dow
Right, thank you for bringing that up. I should have mentioned that the
#lang provides all of racket/base at the module level, so you can write
normal Racket code (including `require`), and any imports at the module
level would be available within the `program` body since it compiles down
to a norm
> The language is composed of 5 forms - help, flag, constraint, program,
> and run. With these 5 forms, you get all of the functionality of the
> built-in parse-command-line form, and with syntax that's much simpler. In
> fact, the nontrivial forms of the language simply use Racket's normal
>
I'm using dynamic binding while also using delimited control operators such
as shift and reset. When shift captures the context of a `parameterize`,
I'd like to be able to resume that continuation in the same context
multiple times without observing modifications caused by other resumptions.
I
6 matches
Mail list logo
