On Jan 19, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> -- you need the same abstractions over and over again: this calls for a
> library system with proper linguistic support. Contrary to rumors, you can't
> really build this support from lambdas and S-expression macros. Is our syntax
>
No, I am just saying the very idea was considered brilliant 30 years ago.
On Jan 22, 2013, at 3:57 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
> On 21/01/13 17:13, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> Absolutely useful. Note: 30 years ago, this macro was the beginning of
>> an ACM award-winning dissertation on "program syn
I have considered adding something like this to the DrRacket teaching languages
for HtDP.
For an ordinary programmer, this conveys that tests do NOT prove anything but
that the function works on the supplied test cases.
Absolutely useful. Note: 30 years ago, this macro was the beginning of a
On 21/01/13 05:22, Eli Barzilay wrote:
(Ah, and that explains the `define/test'. I don't know what's the
time-frame involved, but something that would be more ambitious would
be a language where the source code must have enough tests to get
complete coverage...)
Time frame is the end of the mo
On 20/01/13 22:26, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Jan 20, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
On Jan 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Tim Brown wrote:
A concrete example is that I am trying to write a #lang language.
Honestly, I would never ever try to write a #lang first.
That's more than most people wan
12 hours ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Eli's testing library is in some state of development. Some dev
> people are using it.
Yes, "some state" is a good description... I had a bunch of revisions
that mainly make it easy to create new arrows for different kinds of
testing.
Three hours ag
On 2013-01-20 17:26:33 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> (What is that? Link doesn't work.)
Here is a working link:
http://www.pltgames.com/
It's a programming competition held every month in which the contestants
submit an implementation of a programming language that fits some theme.
IOW, a
On Jan 20, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
> Below, you use define-syntax-rule.
Your example didn't seem to call for more.
And define-syntax-rule is just a syntactic
extension :-) for defining simplistic syntax
extensions. Syntax objects are all under the
hood.
But you are correct. When
On Jan 20, 2013, at 6:37 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
>> On 01/19/2013 06:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> [quoting depth out by one]
>>> On Jan 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Tim Brown wrote:
>>> Here is one way to justify this answer. You really may wish to
>>> make define/test orthogonal to which testing f
On 01/19/2013 06:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
[quoting depth out by one]
On Jan 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Tim Brown wrote:
Here is one way to justify this answer. You really may wish to
make define/test orthogonal to which testing framework you use:
-- rackunit
-- test engine
-- the Eli
Matthias,
Thank you very much for your response.
First, in the interests of full disclosure; I found a bug in my code --
there was a missing #` from one of my templates, which I found through
luck rather than judgement. It'd be easy to claim that "all them
parentheses in Racket just confuse me",
On Jan 18, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Rüdiger Asche wrote:
> Scheme used to be plainly beautiful. Understand lambda expressions, recursion
> and continuations, and everything else more or less falls into place.
Rüdiger,
let me take exception to your message in the sense of your email and in the
sens
Excuse me everyone, I'm sending this so I can pin responses from
another, recently-subscribed-to-the-list account.
Tim
On 01/19/2013 06:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Let's take a step at a time. Don't lose patience. It will help
you get where you want to be, and it may help us figure out ho
Let's take a step at a time. Don't lose patience. It will help
you get where you want to be, and it may help us figure out how
to do better with this aspect of Racket, which is by far its most
innovative part and unrivaled in the world of PLs.
On Jan 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Tim Brown wrote:
>
cheme system to a very few
>> primitives and build the rest around it using syntactic extensions. That may
>> still be true in Racket, but dealing with the syntactic extensions
>> themselves requires learning a complete new and several times more complexe
>> language. Bummer.
s so obfuscated.
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Tim Brown"
> To: "Matthias Felleisen"
> Cc: "Racket Users"
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 6:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [racket] variables within macros
>
>
>
> On 18/01/13 15:54, Ma
t
when all the beauty is so obfuscated.
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Brown"
To: "Matthias Felleisen"
Cc: "Racket Users"
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [racket] variables within macros
On 18/01/13 15:54, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On 18/01/13 15:54, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Is there a single stumbling block or do you feel overwhelmed by
the broad API to the syntax system? -- Matthias
It's a combination of the two...
My single stumbling block is "binding" identifiers -- I'm never sure if
I'm going to end up with an iden
Is there a single stumbling block or do you feel overwhelmed by
the broad API to the syntax system? -- Matthias
On Jan 18, 2013, at 6:38 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
> On 17/01/13 21:33, Greg Hendershott wrote:
Greg Hendershott's pages may be of interest to you:
http://www.greghendershott
On 17/01/13 21:33, Greg Hendershott wrote:
Greg Hendershott's pages may be of interest to you:
http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/
Which is as close as I have come to "How to Design Macros" so far.
I read that earlier, and it gave me the confidence to get stuck in...
maybe I read i
>> Greg Hendershott's pages may be of interest to you:
>> http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/
>
>
> I read that earlier, and it gave me the confidence to get stuck in...
> maybe I read it again to give me the insight to know what I'm doing.
Well it might help prepare you to understand s
On 17/01/13 13:40, Laurent wrote:
Greg Hendershott's pages may be of interest to you:
http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/
I read that earlier, and it gave me the confidence to get stuck in...
maybe I read it again to give me the insight to know what I'm doing.
And I think you can f
Greg Hendershott's pages may be of interest to you:
http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/
And I think you can find some worthwhile notes on the PLT blog too.
Laurent
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
> Danny, Jens Axel, Ian, Ray,
>
> Thanks for your input... I'm absor
Danny, Jens Axel, Ian, Ray,
Thanks for your input... I'm absorbing it all.
I need some really basic help getting my head around all of this.
Where can I download a copy of "How to Design Macros"? :-)
Tim
On 16/01/13 17:22, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
Hi Tim,
Danny explains the problem well.
To
Hi Tim,
Danny explains the problem well.
To accumulate a result, one must stay in the same
same dynamic extent. One way to solve the problem
is to use local-expand. In some cases one can
write expanders for the forms, that needs analysing
and call them directlye (rather than write a macro
for the
Oh yea,
An example of use:
Define a layout of field types and lengths, then when creating a text line
parser you give it the fields you want, and you get a (: Orderline-parser
(String -> Orderline)) where Orderline is an implicitly created struct:
(define-fixed-layout Orderline-layout
(order C
On the topic of "state" propagation across macros by extending the
expansion environment (or whatever the terminology would be).I have an
example where a macro is used to define a layout of a fixed offset text
file. Then a second macro expands into a mini field parser based on the
layout defin
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Tim Brown wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I would like to write a module that uses a macro to transform "define"s
> and accumulate a value based on those transformations.
>
> In a fairly simple way, I want to do something like the below. However, it
> seems the module-begin is
tself. You could also just do a
local-expand for the effect on counter to get your result, but I don't
recommend this.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Brown"
To: "Racket Users"
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:24:44 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subj
Folks,
I would like to write a module that uses a macro to transform "define"s
and accumulate a value based on those transformations.
In a fairly simple way, I want to do something like the below. However, it
seems the module-begin is being transformed before the my-defines. How do
I get counter
30 matches
Mail list logo
