I'm not sure what the qualitative distinction is between contracts and Typed
Racket. They seem like two syntaxes for what mostly amount to the same thing.
Is it just a matter of implementation, or perhaps what their developers focus
on? You could in theory read through a list of contracts, and o
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 5:43:38 PM UTC, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> The macro should use `local-expand` rather than `expand`. See the docs
> for `local-expand`, since it takes more arguments. I would guess you
> probably want to pass along `(syntax-local-context)` and use an empty
> stop lis
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 8:50:31 PM UTC, Matthew Butterick wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Flame_(automobile)
Oh, that's beautiful.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop recei
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 3:29:23 PM UTC, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Nota Poin wrote on 02/15/2016 05:40 AM:
> You seem to be itemizing complaints that come to your mind,
Sorry, I shouldn't have been complaining.
> but I don't
> see how all of them are responding to t
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 5:35:09 PM UTC, Saša Janiška wrote:
> So, at the end I just wonder how is it that such Wonderland is not
> discovered by much more people?
Startup is slow. Intractable problem, JIT compiling just takes time, and can't
be cached beforehand. Like with pypy vs cpyth
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 4:07:53 AM UTC, Nota Poin wrote:
> (define-syntax (transform-post-expansion stx)
> (syntax-case (expand stx) ()
> (...)))
Right, expand the syntax to expand the syntax... that'll work out great...
--
You received this message because you are
I suppose I could do something like this:
(define-syntax (transform-post-expansion stx)
(syntax-case (expand stx) ()
(...)))
--
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,
I was trying to transform the syntax produced by an (include/...) statement,
specifically (include/text) from scribble/text. But when I did this:
(transform (include "somefile.scribble")) it transformed the syntax #'(include
"somefile.scribble"), not the syntax produced from its expansion.
I'm r
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:26:05 AM UTC, Matthew Butterick wrote:
> Of course, you can also use the `at-exp` metalanguage from Scribble to
> simplify text-heavy constructions like these, with variables interpolated
> into strings:
> #lang at-exp racket
>
> (define (query condA condB (lim
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 12:29:04 PM UTC, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket-html-template/
This does almost exactly what I was thinking about! Looking at the code makes
me go cross-eyed, but if you (expand-once #'(html-template ...)) enough, it
turns the SXML tree
okay, I got it I think.
(begin-for-syntax
(define/contract (quotify stx)
(-> (syntax/c (listof any/c)) (listof syntax?))
(map
(λ (stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
(e #'(quote e
(syntax->list stx)))
(define/contract (splice-tf stx)
(-> syntax? syntax?)
(
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 9:08:33 AM UTC-8, Matthew Butterick wrote:
> I'm supposing you know that Racket has at least two native representations
> (X-expression and SXML) for HTML-like structures, so hacking HTML tags by
> hand is unnecessary.
Yes, thank you for mentioning them. I was
I guess this transformation is what I'm looking for:
(transform
(list
stuff ...
(if test
(list yes ...)
(list no ...))
more ...))
=>
(if test
(transform (list stuff ... yes ... more ...))
(transform (list stuff ... no ... more ...)))
but of course you can't
I run into this problem a lot whenever I'm generating some text. I'll be making
what amounts to a sequence of strings being appended, and do something like
this:
(apply string-append
(list "" something ""))
Compared to un-parsing a representation of a document tree every single time,
simpli
I don't really get what generics are. What is the difference between this:
(define show (generic window<%> show))
(send-generic a-window show #t)
and this:
(send a-window show #t)
If the former re...uses the (generic window<%> show) method to be "more"
efficient, then why isn't show already a
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:24:28 PM UTC, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> That is, `import` is a binding form, just like `let`.
Oh, that makes sense. So it gets swapped in the macro for a hygenic named
variable, and the ones I pass by that name don't get swapped in the same
fashion, thus aren't
I'm not sure why, but this works:
(unit
(import foo^)
(export bar^)
(+ foo bar)))
while this fails:
(define-syntax-rule (asyn body ...)
(unit
(import foo^)
(export bar^)
body ...))
(asyn (+ foo bar))
with the error "unit: undefined export" for any imported variables.
Someh
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:17:59 AM UTC, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Note that, unlike some languages, I *don't* want `x` and `y` to be
> optionally positional -- only keyworded.
In my opinion, supplying a default value should make an argument implicitly
keywordable. So (define (a b c (d 3) (e
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 1:38:56 AM UTC, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Use drracket.
Yeah, I would, but it takes about 30 seconds to start up if I disable all the
extensions, add another 10 or 20 for the debugger, and then when I type it lags
behind at about 0.25s per character. Also it cons
On Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 5:53:50 PM UTC, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> The unstable/debug library
That's nice, I suppose, for standardizing the practice of sticking printf
statements here and there for function results. It's basically what Matthias
was saying, except with some additional forms for
On Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 5:53:50 PM UTC, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> The unstable/debug library
That's nice, I suppose, for standardizing the practice of sticking printf
statements here and there for function results. It's basically what Matthias
was saying, except with some additional forms for
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:50:44 PM UTC, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> (foo :abc 1 :xyx 42)
What I want is implicit keyword names for arguments with defaults. So instead
of:
(define (foo #:bar? (bar? #f) #:foo (foo 42) #:some-variable-name
(some-variable-name 3)) ...)
and (foo #:bar? #t
I'll have code like this:
#lang racket/base
(define (baz foo)
(error 'whoops))
(define (bar ber)
(baz ber))
(define (foo ber)
(let ((a 3))
(if (and
(= a 3)
(= (* a 9) 27)
(bar ber)
(list? (list 1 2 3 4)))
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 12:30:54 AM UTC, Daniel Feltey wrote:
> Some of the verbosity of units can be reduced using the "inference" features
> that Racket's unit system provides.
Hmm, I gave it a shot, and this seems to work. Not sure if it'd be especially
useful. But fwiw
--
You rec
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 11:40:12 PM UTC, Alexis King wrote:
> units
Oh uh, conceivably you could have "code" that provided a live session object on
linking, and handled session refreshing internally, then just link that with
units that have session dependant code. I just never found any
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 11:40:12 PM UTC, Alexis King wrote:
> Have you taken a look at parameters?
Short answer: yes. Long answer: they're convenient thread-local globals, but
still feel like globals to me.
(define a (make-parameter 0))
(define (called-at-hopefully-regular-intervals)
(
How do you deal with long-term state that your programming logic depends on,
but is only available at run-time? A persistent connection to a database, or an
RPC server for instance, or a logged in user account. Do you use parameters?
Session objects? Just raw globals? Or something stranger?
Thi
27 matches
Mail list logo
