Hi all,
Does anyone know of a way to set the colors for syntax highlighting in a
slideshow/repl area? I tried using the `slideshow/code` / `pict/code`
parameters but they don't effect slideshow/repl. I suspect I need to do
whatever DrRacket does to the editor when you switch themes, but I can't
quotation once too many times. ;)
On May 1, 2017, 2:04 PM -0400, Scott Moore , wrote:
> Hijacking this thread a little, but a pet peeve: ‘(1 2 3) is not short for
> (list 1 2 3), it just happens to evaluate to that…
>
> (let ([x 0]) (list x x)) -> (list 0 0)
> (let ([x 0]) ‘(x
Hijacking this thread a little, but a pet peeve: ‘(1 2 3) is not short for
(list 1 2 3), it just happens to evaluate to that…
(let ([x 0]) (list x x)) -> (list 0 0)
(let ([x 0]) ‘(x x)) -> (list ‘x ‘x)
Perhaps the reader should implement #l(, which inserts an explicit `list` at
the beginning of
On the other hand, if I recall correctly SML has the same behavior as racket. I
think the implementation uses a chain of "stacklets" that are heap allocated.
On Apr 27, 2017, 8:07 PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri , wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 0
Parameters are thread local, and from reading the docs of virtual-connection
and connection-pool, I think they create new threads to handle the connections.
These threads are probably created before you parameterize, and thus see the
original values.
Try replacing the virtual-connection stuff w
Robby beat me to it. For a longer discussion, see Christos, Robby, Cormac and
Matthias’ paper: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/racket/pubs/popl11-dfff.pdf on the
difference between dependent (->d) and indy-dependent contracts (->i).
A contrived example of why this is better is:
(define/contract (foo x y)
which I’m not sure that
chaperone-procedure’s existing API would support. Would this require
modification of procedure chaperones to support parameters directly,
or is there some way to implement it separately?
> On Nov 23, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Scott Moore wrote:
>
> Yes, we worke
Yes, we worked with Matthew to implement the necessary hooks in procedure
chaperones (see the 'mark options that were added to the return value of
wrapper-proc). For the contracts we were writing, we ended up using these
continuation marks directly.
To implement what you're looking for, a lit
4:53 PM, Scott Moore wrote:
> On October 12, 2016 at 2:35:37 PM, Vincent St-Amour
> (stamo...@eecs.northwestern.edu) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:31:46 -0500,
> Scott Moore wrote:
>>
>> PS: is the documentation for use-once/c somewhere?
>>
On October 12, 2016 at 2:35:37 PM, Vincent St-Amour
(stamo...@eecs.northwestern.edu) wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:31:46 -0500,
Scott Moore wrote:
>
> PS: is the documentation for use-once/c somewhere?
>
> I’ll add it to the docs when I get a chance. You can see the defini
On October 12, 2016 at 12:15:38 PM, Dupéron Georges
(jahvascriptman...@gmail.com) wrote:
This is great! Thumbs up, and thanks for writing this library. I have a couple
of filesystems in my "TODO" list, hopefully this package will motivate me to
actually write them one of these days :) .
Awesome
Hi all,
I'm announcing a new package: fuse (
https://github.com/thinkmoore/racket-fuse).
fuse is a racket library for implementing filesystems in userspace using
the FUSE API available on many *nix platforms and OS X (currently, I've
only tested using recent releases of FUSE on Linux).
People ha
If the definitions are saved as “test.rkt”, the following works:
#lang racket
(module a racket/base (displayln "hello"))
(dynamic-require '(submod "test.rkt" a) #f)
On March 16, 2016 at 12:13:46 PM, Jos Koot (jos.k...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi,
The following example of dynamic-require in the r
Whoops left off the mailing list...
On March 10, 2016 at 2:48:49 PM, Scott Moore (sdmo...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
On March 10, 2016 at 2:41:53 PM, Leif Andersen (l...@leifandersen.net) wrote:
On the other hand, I'm all down for making a `literal` or `exact`
scribble form that spits ou
Yes, around 80% of the time if I disable macro hiding, and sometimes even with
macro hiding if I’m moving back and forth through a long sequence of steps.
I had been meaning to file a report...
On February 11, 2016 at 11:27:21 AM, Matthias Felleisen (matth...@ccs.neu.edu)
wrote:
... has anyone
One place where this can go wrong is with contracts.
Contracts are implemented using chaperones and impersonators (depending on the
particular contract)
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/chaperones.html?q=chaperone#%28tech._chaperone%29.
Because of how chaperones and impersonators work, a p
5])
(display y)
(define y 10)
y)
On November 3, 2015 at 8:51:38 AM, Éric Tanter (etan...@dcc.uchile.cl) wrote:
Thanks all! This is helpful — the mental model of begin that I presented to my
students was too simple to account for defines.
-- Éric
On Nov 2, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Scott Moore
hen you end up
with a non-empty closure (i.e., allocated at run time) due to the
reference to `box`, and so you get `#f` at the end as you expect.
I don't know why PasteRack produces #f, but it must not hold onto the
namespace.
At Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:07:52 -0400, Scott Moore wrote:
I’m trying to do something a bit fancy that makes use of weak-hashes, but I’ve
run into strange behavior (things not being removed that I believe should be)
when I use keys that are closures. Doing some of my own debugging, this doesn’t
appear specific to weak hashes, but also to weak boxes. Her
Hi Sean,
An alternative approach you might consider instead of relying heavily on
sandboxes and namespaces is to define your own #lang where you can
carefully control how different objects are allowed to communicate with
each other. This approach could have two advantages:
1) you can use lighter-w
I ran into this issue recently. The right answer for me was to write a
trampolining macro. define-values is treated specially by the macro
expander and thus can't be handled easily in a local expand. The pattern I
ended up using (adapted from an old mailing list post by Ryan and a
discussion with M
Hi,
I'm trying to write a macro that fully-expands define forms with the goal
of doing some static checking (and thus want the code in racket core so
that I know what I'm looking at). Ideally, this macro would work in any
context where a define form works. Unfortunately, I'm having a great deal
of
ure is implemented
> through an internal structure type that has `prop:impersonator-of`.
>
> Thanks for the report!
>
> At Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:04:10 -0500, Scott Moore wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've run into some strange behavior with the interaction between
>> imp
Hi,
I've run into some strange behavior with the interaction between
impersonators and make-keyword-procedure. I expect that when not invoked
with keywords, the result of make-keyword-procedure and a lambda with the
same form should be equivalent. Instead, they behave differently when
impersonated
I'm not sure what behavior you were expecting for this program. Under
standard prolog semantics (goal-directed) this program will yield
infinitely many solutions, so this may not be a bug in racklog but rather
in the program.
That said, Matthias is probably right that using a currently maintained
25 matches
Mail list logo
