Re: [racket] interaction between in-cycle and in-value

If in-effect were a macro, you'd avoid the ugly lambda (). On Aug 3, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote: > 2012/8/3 Matthew Flatt : >> More precisely, evaluation of the `in-value' call is evaluated once, >> printing a dot and returning a sequence that contains #. > > Would it make sens

Re: [racket] interaction between in-cycle and in-value

2012/8/3 Matthew Flatt : > More precisely, evaluation of the `in-value' call is evaluated once, > printing a dot and returning a sequence that contains #. Would it make sense to include an in-effect ? https://github.com/soegaard/this-and-that/blob/master/heart-beat/in-effect.rkt -- Jens Axel Sø

Re: [racket] interaction between in-cycle and in-value

At Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:11:20 +0100, Tim Brown wrote: > > (for ([j (in-range 10)] [i (in-cycle (in-range 3) (in-value (displayln > ".")))]) (displayln i)) > stdout: ".\n0\n1\n2\n#\n0\n1\n2\n#\n0\n1\n" > > Which suggests that the in-value is evaluated once printing a dot and > returning # -- the

[racket] interaction between in-cycle and in-value

I'm trying to create a long-running for loop; and would like a "heart beat" mechanism to show progress. I've tried to use: (for/sum ([i (in-range 100)] [pulse (in-cycle (in-range 999) (in-value (displayln ".")))] ) i) Which gives me: Value: 4950 stdout: ".\n" [I think rudybot wa