actions for syntax in the same way that
> Racket's closures are pure abstractions for computation. That becomes a
> problem when you want to generate macro definitions that contain
> identifiers that they use as binders.
>
> Philip provided one solution (and thanks for the macro
"third"
"Test that a macro generated by a macro can bind a variable the user
supplied to the generator macro")
; FAILURE
; actual: "second"
; expected: "third"
You can also find this code in Gist form here:
https://gist.github.com/rocketnia/cb83da2c
Thanks everyone for the perspectives and techniques you've offered so far.
I've found a flaw in my gensym technique, even at the command line. If I
run "raco make badlang.rkt", "raco make badlibrary.rkt", and "raco make
client.rkt", the last command has an error. That's because the gensym is
m
Hi all,
I've been thinking about making libraries that would generate submodules
when they're used. However, submodules exist in a flat namespace, I'm a bit
afraid of conflicts if I choose the same name as some other library does,
and I don't really want users to have to supply their own local
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 7:46:11 PM UTC-7, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> Too bad we have to use #/ instead of / in ordinary Racket because / is
> already used for division. There are a lot more #/'s then divisions in
> a typical Racket program.
>
> Redefining div to mean division isn't a real
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 6:43:25 AM UTC-7, Ben Greenman wrote:
>
> On 7/24/19, Mike G. > wrote:
> >> My proposal is to pick a currently underused character (I picked '/' 30
> >> years ago but amost anything would do) and use it to replace the
> >> tail-nesting '(', and remove its corresp
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:18:24 PM UTC-7, Alexis King wrote:
>
> So instead of thinking about all the ways Matthew’s proposed syntax is a
> compromise that necessarily comes with certain downsides, think of it as a
> challenge: how do we take all the lovely things we’ve come to enjoy and
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 11:46:16 AM UTC-7, gustavo wrote:
>
> I always imagined racket2 as racket with a few minor backward incompatible
> changes, for example make `length` generic, drop `struct`, remove
> guarantees about freshness of results. I.E. Most of
> https://github.com/racket/rack
Instead of a new `#%q-expression` form, I think there's potential to use
`#%datum` or `quote` itself for this. Potentially, the only thing that
makes numbers (for instance) special is that the reader, printer, IDE, and
bytecode systems already know what module(s) the number structure type(s)
co
Thanks for exploring this!
I was tempted down this path earlier this year because I was trying to
future-proof my structure type definitions by making them cross-phase
persistent. I see no innate reason for them not to be, so I figured I'd put
in the effort early and avoid having to make a brea
7;d
like to add it to the "related work" section of the Parendown readme
<https://github.com/lathe/parendown-for-racket#related-work>.
- rocketnia
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this
11 matches
Mail list logo
