At Fri, 15 May 2015 11:09:25 -0400, Philip Blair wrote:
> One question I have is whether or
> not the scopes feature is something which I can more or less count on being
> available in future versions of Racket
That's not yet clear.
Although most existing code would be unaffected by the change to
Sorry for the delay (I was moving earlier this week).
Thank you for taking a crack at the task. One question I have is whether or
not the scopes feature is something which I can more or less count on being
available in future versions of Racket (I understand that it's from a
snapshot and might the
> On May 10, 2015, at 19:04, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Probably off-topic: you might be interested in
>
> http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/sw2003/Scmxlate.pdf
>
> Start with the title and then the summary at the end. Dorai has used this
> package to make his programs availabl
Probably off-topic: you might be interested in
http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/sw2003/Scmxlate.pdf
Start with the title and then the summary at the end. Dorai has used this
package to make his programs available in Schemes and Common Lisps.
-- Matthias
On May 8, 2015, at 10:5
I've fought my way a little up the hill, and enclosed is an
implementation that I think works the way you want within a module.
See the enclosed "in-package.rkt".
As you suspected, `make-syntax-introducer` is the piece that you need.
In the terminology of the current macro expander, the function p
That's good to know about namespaces being intended to be for runtime
reflection.
I understand what you mean when you say "bindings and lexical context," but
in what specific way do you mean in the context of this issue?
I also feel that I should mention that I am having difficulty wrapping my
bra
I agree that those sound goals sound like a poor fit for `module+`.
It's possible that `racket/package` provides something closer to the
namespace-management tools that you need.
Generally, I think you'll find more success by manipulating bindings
and lexical context (in the sense of `datum->synta
On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 11:02:33 PM UTC-4, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I wonder whether whether expanding to `module+` might be a better
> direction. A rough expansion of your example might be
>
> #lang racket/base
> (module+ FOO
> (provide (all-defined-out))
> (define BAR 2))
>
> (m
I wonder whether whether expanding to `module+` might be a better
direction. A rough expansion of your example might be
#lang racket/base
(module+ FOO
(provide (all-defined-out))
(define BAR 2))
(module+ FOO
(define BAZ (add1 BAR)))
(module+ FOO
(add1 BAZ))
(module+ QU
Hello,
I am working on a project in which I am trying to implement a Common Lisp-style
package system. A simple example of usage would be as follows:
(in-package FOO
(define BAR 2))
; ...
(in-package FOO
(define BAZ (add1 BAR)))
; ...
(in-package FOO
(add1 BAZ)) ; =
10 matches
Mail list logo
