On 26/09/2018 19:39, Philip McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paulo Matos wrote:
>
> I am keen on hearing about alternatives. The reason to do like this is
> to minimize friction with clients. Clients in the area of development
> tools expect something that they can
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paulo Matos wrote:
> I am keen on hearing about alternatives. The reason to do like this is
> to minimize friction with clients. Clients in the area of development
> tools expect something that they can execute and generally are not too
> keen on scripty calls like
On 25/09/2018 23:38, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 9/25/18 1:11 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>> [] Personally, I would appreciate a way to ask
>> Racket to strip all phase ≥1 code and phase ≥1 dependencies from a
>> specified program so that I can distribute the phase 0 code and
>> dependencies exclu
On 25/09/2018 23:44, Philip McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 3:46 PM 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> mailto:racket-users@googlegroups.com>>
> wrote:
>
> OK, so I understand now that what I want is an unimplemented feature,
> but in most compilers these days and certainly those
On 25/09/2018 23:38, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 9/25/18 1:11 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>> [] Personally, I would appreciate a way to ask
>> Racket to strip all phase ≥1 code and phase ≥1 dependencies from a
>> specified program so that I can distribute the phase 0 code and
>> dependencies exclu
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 3:46 PM 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users <
racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> OK, so I understand now that what I want is an unimplemented feature,
> but in most compilers these days and certainly those based in LLVM and
> GCC there's a feature called whole-program optim
On 9/25/18 1:11 PM, Alexis King wrote:
[] Personally, I would appreciate a way to ask
Racket to strip all phase ≥1 code and phase ≥1 dependencies from a
specified program so that I can distribute the phase 0 code and
dependencies exclusively. However, to my knowledge, Racket does not
currentl
On 25/09/2018 20:11, Alexis King wrote:
> (Sorry, Paulo, for the duplicate message; I forgot to Reply All the
> first time.)
>
> This is sort of subtle. When we consider a macro-enabled language, we
> often imagine that `expand` takes a program with some phase ≥1 code,
> expands all the macros
(Sorry, Paulo, for the duplicate message; I forgot to Reply All the
first time.)
This is sort of subtle. When we consider a macro-enabled language, we
often imagine that `expand` takes a program with some phase ≥1 code,
expands all the macros in the program by running the phase ≥1 code, and
produc
Hi,
I reached a point at which I don't think I am exactly understanding how
the racket compilation pipeline works.
My software has several compile time options that use environment
variables to be read (since I can't think of another way to do it) so I
define a compile time variable as:
(defin
10 matches
Mail list logo
