To clarify: neither my work nor Stephen's would allow you to re-use Typed
Racket's typechecking or inference. Rather, we're working to make it easy
to implement new eDSLs with custom type systems and intermediate
representations while remaining macro-extensible.
A few projects that have been in
You might also find the redex model and examples from the scope sets paper
useful:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/popl16/
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:18:47 PM UTC-4, michael.ballantyne wrote:
>
> As far as I'm aware, the new expander was tested initially on the simple
> cases
As far as I'm aware, the new expander was tested initially on the simple
cases in:
https://github.com/racket/racket/blob/master/racket/src/expander/demo.rkt
The `racket-tests-core` tests
here:
https://github.com/racket/racket/tree/master/pkgs/racket-test-core/tests/racket
particularly `stx.rk
It's true that `internal-definition-context-binding-identifier` is unusual
in not applying `syntax-local-introduce` to the identifiers it returns, but
that doesn't capture the whole problem. Let's imagine we made things
consistent by mapping `syntax-local-introduce` over the returned names.
Let
The idea of systems vs languages from that article felt important to me,
too, though I'm not sure I understand it exactly the same as Gabriel does.
I look back at programming environments like Smalltalk-80 and the Symbolics
lisp machine with a bit of envy. They had features that relied on the ti
The expression:
(quasisyntax (quote-syntax quasisyntax))
seems to result in an infinite loop. Does anyone know if that's a bug, or
expected behavior?
Thanks!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Is there a way to make a deep copy of the state of a sandbox evaluator, such
that I could start up another evaluator from the same state?
I'm imagining a collaborative programming environment where users could fork
the state of a REPL with all it's definitions, computed values, etc and begin
an
much prefer at the moment over speculative solutions are reports
> >> of actual performance bottlenecks. -- Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 1, 2015, at 1:09 AM, michael.ballantyne wrote:
> >>
> >>> I&
I've started using Typed Racket several times recently only to flip the switch
to #lang typed/racket/no-check or remove types entirely. Something like Vincent
suggests with an option to write with types and have them checked but turn off
the type-driven optimizer and skip contract checking at ty
9 matches
Mail list logo
