On Jun 27, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Gregory Marton wrote:
This is also important because, at the moment, WeScheme doesn't have a stepper,
and DrRacket's stepper has a (reported) bug about relative teachpack paths, so
using the stepper has been challenging.
I haven't seen this bug report but that's
On Jun 27, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Gregory Marton wrote:
> This is also important because, at the moment, WeScheme doesn't have a
> stepper, and DrRacket's stepper has a (reported) bug about relative teachpack
> paths, so using the stepper has been challenging.
I haven't seen this bug report but tha
What you see here is the BSL printer of course. It insists on showing
students the list in terms of basic construction steps.
Thanks,
As Eli said, in BSL, a function definition defines a macro. So your
define/source needs to deliver a macro that obeys the same protocol (I am not
sure that's
On Jun 26, 2011, at 11:01 PM, Gregory Marton wrote:
> In BSL:
>
>> (define/save-source (foo x) (+ x 3))
>> (procedure-source foo)
> (cons '? (cons (cons 'x empty) (cons (cons '+ (cons 'x (cons 3 empty)))
> empty)))
What you see here is the BSL printer of course. It insists on showing student
Not really an answer -- but note that in BSL functions are actually
defined as macros, so it's not surprising that your macro fails. (But
probably possible to get it to work somehow.)
Four hours ago, Gregory Marton wrote:
>
> So my question boils down to:
> 1. Is there a way that I can use the
Hi folks,
In trying to improve the Bootstrap[1] teachpacks, I've written (with
help[2]) a macro to save function bodies in a hashtable in the sky before
actually defining them. That way, I can programmatically break down a
function definition into its constituent pieces and show how they're
6 matches
Mail list logo
