On Jul 17, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Ryan Culpepper ry...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
* Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu
- Unit Contract Tests
- Contract Region Tests
- Class Contract Tests
Done.
Stevie
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
- What: 8th Workshop on Dynamic Languages and Applications.
- Where: Co-located with PLDI'14, Edinburgh, UK
- When: June 12th,
Sponsored by ACM SIGPLAN
Submission deadline: March 15th
More info on the website: http://www.lifl.fr/dyla14/
Dyla is a place where developers and researchers can
/contract/private/
8.4% collects/racket/private/
7.3% collects/scribblings/reference/
34.5% collects/tests/racket/
~~
eb12d76 Stevie Strickland sstri...@racket-lang.org 2013-04-13 17:18
:
| Add two spaces before contract error message fields (Reference section
9.2.1).
:
M
Sorry about the delay. My original planned fix didn't pan out, but now I've
got a fix in place in the repo (push #26457).
Thanks,
Stevie
On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On 2013-03-09 10:57:28 -0500, sstri...@racket-lang.org wrote:
7d1ad25 Stevie
On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:32 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 11:53 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:30 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 10:25 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
As for the negative blame, who should be responsible? Who's
responsible
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:17:33 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
IIUC from your later message, you've implemented the generics
analogue of object/c (per-instance contract), whereas
prop:dict/contract is
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
Much like interface contracts mediate between the creator of a class (that
implements the interface) and the client of that class (that instantiates
objects from that interface),
Of course I meant the client that instantiates objects
[Hit Reply instead of Reply All, so fixing that here.]
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:17:33 -0600, Ryan
On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:30 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 10:25 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
[Hit Reply instead of Reply All, so fixing that here.]
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM
You're correct about it being optional, so go ahead and add it.
Thanks,
Stevie
On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:48 PM, John Clements wrote:
It looks to me like the free-var-list is optional in uses of with-contract
and define/contract. The documentation, though, suggests that this is not the
case.
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM, sstri...@racket-lang.org wrote:
f5de8bd Stevie Strickland sstri...@racket-lang.org 2011-04-26 12:57
:
| Move scmxlated source for slatex into private.
|
| Anyone using the sole export from slatex.rkt should
On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Jon Rafkind wrote:
Stevie:
a04b8d989936e64e29d2ae123da39159c2cdf2e6
Change instanceof/c to allow more contracts.
Now instanceof/c no longer checks explicitly for a class/c contract, so
or/c or and/c of class/c contracts succeed.
On Jan 31, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
* Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu
- Unit Contract Tests
- Contract Region Tests
Done.
Stevie
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think that we are just throwing up stumbling blocks. It is really a
design choice (does a reprovide carry over the contract or does it
put a new one on there?) and I seriously doubt
On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
But I don't think we should think of it as 'changing the positive
blame information' -- I agree anything phrased like that sounds wrong.
But I think you _do_ want this in some cases, where you're reproviding
internally contracted things to an
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
2. I am not strictly opposed to your suggestion because I see value in your
reasoning. If we go with re-providing the identifier with its contract, I
would like to see the blame assignment shifted to the re-exporting module.
This does
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Stevie Strickland
sstri...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
2. I am not strictly opposed to your suggestion because I see value in your
reasoning. If we go with re
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
So, let me ask this: Stevie, do you think that the current world for
re-provided bindings is the right design decision (ie act as if they
were all written like (provide/contract [f any/c])), or do you think
this change I'm suggesting (act as if
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Are you saying that it is somehow less bad if the only indeterminate
aspect of the use of the variable is whether or not the 'via' shows
up?
There the information is taken from the context of the _use_ of the variable,
which is calculated when
On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
as far as the contract library is concerned, but now I'm starting to
think that that is not convenient enough. Instead, we should really
default to 'provide f with the same contract it had before, as if the
programmer had copied and pasted the
On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Casey Klein wrote:
FWIW, I had no idea what the message's via clause meant.
Truthfully, I was guessing that via = user blame. If I didn't know the
internals, I wouldn't have known what that meant either. I think it needs to
be rewritten, but I haven't thought
On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Two complaints in one day about the wording of these clauses. Let's do
something about the English.
Agreed.
I have another one, unrelated: I don't like the 'self-blame'. I have
encountered this now a couple of times, and I think we
of it, that might make things ok.
Robby
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
92775c5 Stevie Strickland sstri...@racket-lang.org 2011-01-07 18:22
:
| Add instanceof.
|
| The instanceof contract combinator takes a class contract. The resulting
| contract
My answers are:
1. There isn't, but I've been planning to do this as soon as I revisit
define-struct/contract in the new chaperone/impersonator world.
2. It's doable, but hasn't been done yet. I'll try and keep this in mind when
I revisit the things listed in 1. If I were to do it, I'd
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Then, on the laptop, I did a git pull, and I ended up with the commits
back in the original order and a merge commit afterwards but I would
rather just have my state be like the server's was.
Then don't do git pull. That not only updates your
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Then, on the laptop, I did a git pull, and I ended up with the commits
back in the original order and a merge commit afterwards but I would
rather just have my state be like the server's
On Jan 7, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote:
So I did this (git means git.racket-lang.org in my ssh setup as
I did things that way before Eli's recommendation changed)
git clone git:robby/plt
git remote add plt git:plt
It might be more convenient to
On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
If someone besides me wants to take a stab at formulating a less painful
message, the code is in collects/racket/contract/private/blame.rkt and,
thanks to Stevie's refactoring, very easy to work with.
While I'd love to take the credit on
On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
Both this and Sam's idea seem like good ways to improve the error
message to me. Not sure if Casey or Sam (or Christos?) wants to try to
their hand at the actual formatting or not. I will, if not.
A couple of things to note for anyone who
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
But this seems to perhaps be developing into something more
interesting. Maybe there is something more general than contracts and
we should have a contracts+X system that supports that, somehow.
Every time I discuss contracts with a visiting
On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
But this seems to perhaps be developing into something more
interesting. Maybe there is something more general
On Oct 28, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Casey Klein wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
More immediately, it's time for you to try out the gr2 branch for
everyday work.
In case there's anyone else who wants to try but (somehow) knows even
less about git
On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Doug Williams wrote:
On the case- problem, it seems it no longer supports anything but -. Is
there something I am missing there?
This is a current limitation for case- as provided by racket/contract. When I
tackle the conversion of case- to proxies/chaperones, I
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
* Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu
- Unit Contract Tests
- Contract Region Tests
Done.
Stevie
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
34 matches
Mail list logo
