Veer wrote:
> I am unable to understand how free-identifier=? and
> bound-identifier=? works?
[...]
> When I use them ,they both produces #t .
You are misunderstanding the meaning of the function names;
you may try to read [1] which is an annotated section from
the R6RS standard.
Howe
On 04/10/2011 12:31 AM, Veer wrote:
Hello,
I am unable to understand how free-identifier=? and bound-identifier=? works?
For example suppose I have a code :
(lambda (x y) (let ([x 2]) x))
then how do I determine if last x in the body of let is not bound by first
parameter to lambda? , usin
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 17:24 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Charles Hixson wrote at 04/05/2011 04:44 PM:
> > I was really looking for something simple like Doxygen or Javadoc.
> > Something that steps through the code, looks at comments, and pulls
> > out of marked comments into a documentation f
Your code also returne (#t #t)
Also see Ryan Culpepper's email.
Jos
> -Original Message-
> From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org
> [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Marco Maggi
> Sent: 10 April 2011 13:23
> To: Veer
> Cc: users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [racket] How
Hi All,
An interesting LLVM to JavaScript compiler called Emscripten has just
been released.
http://syntensity.blogspot.com/2011/04/emscripten-10.html
Maybe this could be used to make Racket-in-browser?
Is it feasible to compile the non-jit version of Racket with
Emscripten or is there
some
Why would it be better to first retarget Racket to the LLVM than to
just use the current Racket bytecode->JavaScript compiler?
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> An interesting LLVM to JavaScript compiler called Emscripten has just
> been released.
>
> htt
Why do you use graphviz? Isn't the module browser giving you the
graph that you want?
A while ago I proposed to the dev list that we need a 'tooltip'
thing so that the module browser shows the interface of modules
and ideally the types or contracts (these are two distinct, barely
related idea
2011/4/10 Shriram Krishnamurthi :
> Why would it be better to first retarget Racket to the LLVM than to
> just use the current Racket bytecode->JavaScript compiler?
Does the current bytecode to JavaScript compiler cover the whole language?
A direct Racket bytecode to JavaScript compiler ought to b
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 13:09 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Why do you use graphviz? Isn't the module browser giving you the
> graph that you want?
Honestly I don't really know much about it. It seems to show something
of the structure of my modules but it's not quite there (I'm not using
5.1
Jos Koot wrote:
> Your code also returne (#t #t)
And it is correct given the input form in the example: the
pattern variables X and C are bound to the identifiers X
from the input syntax object.
--
Marco Maggi
_
For list-related administrati
The module browser has been around forever. So has the Tools API in DrRacket,
at least since the last 90s. Take a look in the docs -- Matthias
On Apr 10, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Markku Rontu wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 13:09 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> Why do you use graphviz? Isn't the
> Does the current bytecode to JavaScript compiler cover the whole language?
No, we definitely have the "library problem".
> A direct Racket bytecode to JavaScript compiler ought to be
> faster/smaller/better etc.
I don't understand this. "direct" = ? How would it be more "direct"
than the cur
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Markku Rontu wrote:
> Open API would be great for more than one tool. I mean opening up the
> existing stuff there is, for example the module browser and the check
> syntax. What kind of API would there be if I wanted to use it so that I
> don't have to develop my
2011/4/10 Shriram Krishnamurthi :
>> Does the current bytecode to JavaScript compiler cover the whole language?
>
> No, we definitely have the "library problem".
>
>> A direct Racket bytecode to JavaScript compiler ought to be
>> faster/smaller/better etc.
>
> I don't understand this. "direct" = ?
25 minutes ago, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> 2011/4/10 Shriram Krishnamurthi :
> >> Does the current bytecode to JavaScript compiler cover the whole language?
> >
> > No, we definitely have the "library problem".
> >
> >> A direct Racket bytecode to JavaScript compiler ought to be
> >> faster/smaller
2011/4/10 Eli Barzilay :
> 25 minutes ago, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>> 2011/4/10 Shriram Krishnamurthi :
>> >> One advantage with the LLVM solution is that one is sure that the
>> >> semantics of the parts of Racket that are implemented in C will
>> >> be preserved. I am thinking such things as th
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard
wrote:
> 2011/4/10 Eli Barzilay :
>> 25 minutes ago, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>>> 2011/4/10 Shriram Krishnamurthi :
>
>>> >> One advantage with the LLVM solution is that one is sure that the
>>> >> semantics of the parts of Racket that are impleme
17 matches
Mail list logo
