[racket-dev] Help with build failed error message

2014-07-19 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
I made a fork of the racket repo and committed some changes in a topic branch, but I got this: make[8]: Leaving directory `/home/travis/build/AlexKnauth/racket/racket/src/build' make[7]: Leaving directory `/home/travis/build/AlexKnauth/racket/racket/src/build' make[6]: Leaving directory

Re: [racket-dev] Help with build failed error message

2014-07-21 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
the `racket/racket3m` process from the outside. For example, the process may have exceeded a memory-use limit. At Sat, 19 Jul 2014 20:25:24 -0400, Alexander D. Knauth wrote: I made a fork of the racket repo and committed some changes in a topic branch, but I got this: make[8]: Leaving

Re: [racket-dev] parse errors in types, poly-dots cause me headaches

2014-11-18 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
In terms of bugs, it’s probably related to this problem with call-with-values and poly-dots: #lang typed/racket (: f : (All (a ...) [(- (values Any ... a)) - Void])) (define (f g) (call-with-values g void)) ;= . . ../../Applications/Racket

Re: [racket-dev] question, issue(?) with the scope of identifiers passed into define-syntax-rule

2015-01-15 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
But I think it’s important that it doesn’t use gensym or something like that, it uses syntax-marks, which means you can break these lexical scoping rules if you want/need to by using either syntax-local-introduce or datum-syntax: #lang racket (require syntax/parse/define) (define-simple-macro

Re: [racket-dev] A proposal for parametric opaque types in Typed Racket

2015-01-30 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
or the set of values that would pass the contracts or something like that. On Jan 30, 2015, at 12:30, Alexander D. Knauth alexan...@knauth.org wrote: On Jan 30, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Alexis King lexi.lam...@gmail.com wrote: No, it doesn’t need to be wrapped in an opaque structure. Wrapping

Re: [racket-dev] A proposal for parametric opaque types in Typed Racket

2015-01-30 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
. On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:27, Alexander D. Knauth alexan...@knauth.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2015, at 09:03 PM, Alexis King wrote: It isn’t wrapped in an opaque structure. That wasn’t a part of my proposal, and while I didn’t think of it until you brought it up, I still think it’s unnecessary

Re: [racket-dev] In Typed Racket, struct declarations do not work in an internal definition context

2015-01-23 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
There’s a bug report about this here: http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=viewpr=14524 Though I notice it gives a different error message now. But why should structure type declarations being a module-wide construct? Internal function definitions work, and internal type definitions work, so why

Re: [racket-dev] A proposal for parametric opaque types in Typed Racket

2015-01-29 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
(: b : (Boxof Number)) (define b (box 1)) (set-box! (cast b (Boxof (U Number String))) I am a string) (ann (unbox b) Number) ;I am a string” ; not a contract error On Jan 29, 2015, at 20:20, Alexander D. Knauth alexan...@knauth.org wrote: Furthermore, even if the wrappers were shared between

Re: [racket-dev] A proposal for parametric opaque types in Typed Racket

2015-01-29 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
Um, for this: (module typed typed/racket/base (provide (struct-out Foo)) (struct [A] Foo ([x : A] [y : A]) #:transparent)) (Foo a 'b) Should be fine because Foo could be instantiated at the type (U String Symbol). On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:25 PM, Alexis King lexi.lam...@gmail.com wrote: I

Re: [racket-dev] A proposal for parametric opaque types in Typed Racket

2015-01-29 Thread Alexander D. Knauth
Furthermore, even if the wrappers were shared between functions, untyped code would recieved wrapped values, which would render them quite useless. If it’s not an opaque type, but something like a list, then this works, and the untyped code receiving wrapped values isn’t a problem here: #lang