[racket-users] What's the correct way to test a Racket build?

2020-04-19 Thread Yongming Shen
Hi, After an in-place build of Racket from source (from a git clone), what's the correct way to test that Racket functions correctly? I can't find documentation on this. Is it simply running "racket/bin/raco test pkgs/racket-test" from the root of the repository? Also, for a release (say, tag

Re: [racket-users] questions about top-level-bind-scope in root-expand-context

2020-03-31 Thread Yongming Shen
nder/expand/main.rkt") appear to be non-essential, but may offer minor performance advantages (really not sure). On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 2:15:32 AM UTC-4, Yongming Shen wrote: > > Hi Matthew, > > Thanks for the explanations. But I'm still not convinced that the > top-

Re: [racket-users] questions about top-level-bind-scope in root-expand-context

2020-03-23 Thread Yongming Shen
er to itself, simply because of how macro expansion works, so the top-level-bind-scope is again not needed for recursion. Is my understanding correct? On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 10:05:12 AM UTC-4, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > At Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Yongming Shen wrote:

Re: [racket-users] Re: questions about top-level-bind-scope in root-expand-context

2020-03-23 Thread Yongming Shen
ote: > > > > >On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:46:53PM -0400, George Neuner wrote: > > >> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Yongming Shen > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> >I have the following as `module-that-defines-fib`: > > >

Re: [racket-users] questions about top-level-bind-scope in root-expand-context

2020-03-23 Thread Yongming Shen
ming On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 9:25:01 AM UTC-4, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > At Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Yongming Shen wrote: > > First, in the source file expander/expand/bind-top.rkt, there is a > comment > > that says "When compiling `(define-values (x

[racket-users] questions about top-level-bind-scope in root-expand-context

2020-03-21 Thread Yongming Shen
Hi, I noticed that top level (define-values ...) forms create bindings that include the top-level-bind-scope (of the namespace's root-expand-context), and have two questions related to this. First, in the source file expander/expand/bind-top.rkt, there is a comment that says "When compiling `(

Re: [racket-users] counterintuitive behavior of namespace-require

2020-01-06 Thread Yongming Shen
amespace directly except in > limited cases. > > At Mon, 6 Jan 2020 19:09:44 -0800 (PST), Yongming Shen wrote: > > Hi, I have encountered a counterintuitive behavior of namespace-require > and > > wonder if it is a bug. > > Basically, namespace-require behaves d

[racket-users] counterintuitive behavior of namespace-require

2020-01-06 Thread Yongming Shen
Hi, I have encountered a counterintuitive behavior of namespace-require and wonder if it is a bug. Basically, namespace-require behaves differently when the target namespace is passed by parameterizing current-namespace, compared to when the optional namespace parameter is used. For example, th

[racket-users] Re: possible bug related to syntax-shift-phase-level

2019-08-02 Thread Yongming Shen
Got my answer from another discussion: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/racket-users/qW-NZN2pwgk/y309YUwqEwAJ On Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 12:56:33 AM UTC-4, Yongming Shen wrote: > > Hi, > > It seems that after an identifier has been shifted > by syntax-shift-phase-leve

Re: [racket-users] a question related to bound-identifier=?

2019-08-02 Thread Yongming Shen
cope (i.e., not establish a binding for some > arbitrary other context). The affect on the `let` binding here seems > like an unfortunate side effect of the way that constraint is > implemented. > > At Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Yongming Shen wrote: > > I think I fo

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

2019-08-02 Thread Yongming Shen
UTC-4, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:49:23AM -0700, Yongming Shen wrote: > > On the topic of making Racket 2 more appealing to new users. As a new > user > > myself, I have one (likely uninformed) suggestion: > > > > Design and promote a &q

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

2019-08-02 Thread Yongming Shen
On the topic of making Racket 2 more appealing to new users. As a new user myself, I have one (likely uninformed) suggestion: Design and promote a "boring core subset" that an experienced programmer can pick up easily and be as productive as when using an "ordinary programming language", withou

Re: [racket-users] a question related to bound-identifier=?

2019-07-29 Thread Yongming Shen
how (let ...) handles identifiers with shifted phase levels? Thanks, Yongming On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 7:07:49 AM UTC-4, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > At Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:55:18 -0700 (PDT), Yongming Shen wrote: > > Based on my understanding, (bound-identifier=? id-a id-b) onl

[racket-users] possible bug related to syntax-shift-phase-level

2019-07-26 Thread Yongming Shen
Hi, It seems that after an identifier has been shifted by syntax-shift-phase-level, the original identifier can bind the shifted identifier, but not the other way around. I think the correct behavior is that neither should bind the other. The following code can be used to test this. (define-s

[racket-users] a question related to bound-identifier=?

2019-07-25 Thread Yongming Shen
Hi there, Based on my understanding, (bound-identifier=? id-a id-b) only returns true if id-a would bind id-b AND id-b would bind id-a. Also based on my understanding, id-a will bind id-b doesn't imply that id-b will bind id-a. So, if I only want to check whether id-a will bind id-b, which func