On 28/05/2019 04:56, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote:
> I’m responding to my own message, because (thanks to Andy Keep) I’ve now
> discovered a big chunk of the answer.
>
> Specifically, it looks Jeremy Siek’s compilers class includes a textbook
> written by him and Ryan Newton whose p
I’m responding to my own message, because (thanks to Andy Keep) I’ve now
discovered a big chunk of the answer.
Specifically, it looks Jeremy Siek’s compilers class includes a textbook
written by him and Ryan Newton whose preface appears to answer all of my
questions; specifically, that they did
On Feb 6, 2019, at 11:28, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2019, at 2:22 PM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> wrote:
>> Interestingly according to Matt these ideas were already floating around at
>> his uni as early as 98?
> My recollection is that Kent taught with this approach because it
Matthew Flatt writes:
> Personally, while my contributions to Chez Scheme so far have been
> modest, I have already factored into my costs the worst-case scenario
> of fully maintaining Chez Scheme as used by Racket. Even if that
> happens, it still looks like a good deal in the long run.
That's
> On Feb 6, 2019, at 3:19 PM, George Neuner wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 12:50:21 -0500, Matthias Felleisen
> mailto:matth...@felleisen.org>> wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 6, 2019, at 12:30 PM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was quite surprised to read these nanopass ideas have
> * As an aside, one of the few times I remember Kent Dybvig making a "joke" in
> class was when he introduced the pass "remove complex operands." It was
> called "remove-complex-opera*." At Indiana, where Opera is a Thing, I think
> it was particularly funny as an inside joke of sorts. He devol
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 12:50:21PM -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 2019, at 12:30 PM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> > wrote:
> >
> > I was quite surprised to read these nanopass ideas have been around for
> > so long.
>
>
> 1. The educational idea came first:
>
> A Na
My recollection is that Kent taught with this approach because it simplified
homeworks for students and graders and I encouraged him to write it up for the
“education pearl” section that I launched for JFP in ’03. It took several years
to collect the papers and get them written and publish the
Thanks for the references. That really useful.
Interestingly according to Matt these ideas were already floating around at his
uni as early as 98?
On 6 February 2019 18:50:21 CET, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 6, 2019, at 12:30 PM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> wrote:
>>
>> I wa
Andy Keep did a presentation on writing a nanopass compiler a couple of years
ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os7FE3J-U5Q
That and the code on his github were very helpful when I tried to understand
the nanopass framework.
// Niklas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
> On Feb 6, 2019, at 12:30 PM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> wrote:
>
> I was quite surprised to read these nanopass ideas have been around for
> so long.
1. The educational idea came first:
A Nanopass framework for compiler education. • Volume 15, Issue 5 • September
2005 , pp. 653-66
On 06/02/2019 13:42, Matt Jadud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 8:01 AM 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> mailto:racket-users@googlegroups.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Matthew mentions the move to Chez will help maintainability and I am
> sure he's right because he has been working with Racket
On 05/02/2019 22:44, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> BTW, sometime around when the move to Chez settles, it would be good if
> many people were somewhat familiar with current Racket internals.
That would be absolutely great. I think if there is a small team of
contributors alongside Matthew improving C
On 05/02/2019 19:05, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Hi Paulo,
>
> Not to discourage other answers to your call for opinions, but here's
> mine.
>
> Granting your point about the structure of the code in Chez Scheme,
> everything is relative. I still think Chez Scheme is a better starting
> point than
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 8:01 AM 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users <
racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Matthew mentions the move to Chez will help maintainability and I am
> sure he's right because he has been working with Racket for a long time
> but my experience comes from looking at backend
I had a related (but different and small) concern about the new
dependency a while ago (this was off-list), but it sounded like that
risk was covered, and also that Matthew has really gotten into the Chez
code.
BTW, sometime around when the move to Chez settles, it would be good if
many peopl
Hi Paulo,
Not to discourage other answers to your call for opinions, but here's
mine.
Granting your point about the structure of the code in Chez Scheme,
everything is relative. I still think Chez Scheme is a better starting
point than the existing Racket implementation as code to reorganize,
doc
Hi all,
Now that I got your attention... :)
Although the title is not purely click-bait, it is motivated by personal
requirements.
Most of us are happy with the move to Chez (actually haven't heard
anyone opposing it), but I would like to point to something I have felt
over the past year and to u
18 matches
Mail list logo
