Hi,
I would like to humbly request a new `replace-evt` procedure that would
work as `wrap-evt` except that when it produces another `evt?`, `sync`
replaces the old event with the newly produced one and restarts.
It will be a good replacement for threads and channels when filtering
events or
On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 12:46 +0100, Matthew Flatt wrote:
The rightmost column of the table may need some explanation. The column
highlights conflicts among names of package-installed executables,
foreign libraries, and documents. Currently, all the conflicts are
document names, because several
On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 13:14 +0100, Matthew Flatt wrote:
A package X that provides a collection X of the same name should
probably also call its documentation X.
Thanks, I've fixed mine.
Looking forward to having pkg-docs at a single place. :-)
_
Racket Developers
Hello,
I am hitting a rather uncomfortable bug that causes runtime to start
internal busy-waiting at around:
#0 scheme_block_until(_f=syncing_ready,
fdf=scheme_syncing_needs_wakeup)
at ../src/thread.c:5199
#1 do_sync (name=sync, with_break=0, with_timeout=0)
at ../src/thread.c:7109
Hi,
about the http://pkgs.racket-lang.org/ - the site is getting rather
large. Wouldn't server-side filtering work better than the client
javascript solution?
Plus I often have trouble submitting new packages, the form could
easily be done in the traditional way and the experience would be
Hi,
I would like to ask for another extension of the Racket's event handling
system. A `memoize-evt` constructor with following semantics:
Given a base event E_b, memoize-evt will produce a memoizing event E_m.
Synchronizing on E_m from any number of threads will block until a
single value is
On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 16:41 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
That is, I thought you could just create a separate thread that sync's
on E_b and then whenever you get a value from it, then the E_m would
just continue to produce that all the time. But I think you're saying
that wouldn't work?
The
Thanks for your time.
On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 12:55 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Would the simpler `once-evt` work in your situation, or do you need the
guarantee that only one wait of E happens at a time?
OK, my original goal is to implement a remote method call multiplexer.
The kind where you
8 matches
Mail list logo
