Thanks Asumu for merging and fixing my docs bug.
Since this was my first time contributing, I figured I'd write up what
the steps were for future first-time Racket hackers before I forget:
http://jpolitz.github.com/blog/2012/11/21/racket-contributing-tutorial.html
Cheers,
Joe
On Tue, Nov 20,
I'm not sure how to find the right incantation to pull this down, but
this commit looks good to push to our repo.
Robby
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Joe Gibbs Politz j...@cs.brown.edu wrote:
I think I've successfully sent a thingie to you:
https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/171
Let me
A small suggestion:
I used roughly this macro (credit Jonah Kagan) recently to help me write
some tests for parsing code that agnostic to which source position is
generated in the parse:
(define-syntax test/match
(syntax-rules ()
[(test/match actual expected pred)
(let ([actual-val
That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate
it into rackunit? -- Matthias
On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:
A small suggestion:
I used roughly this macro (credit Jonah Kagan) recently to help me write some
tests for parsing code
I written things like this before, so something built-in would be useful
to me too.
David
On 11/19/12 5:01 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate
it into rackunit? -- Matthias
On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs
Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with check not test tho,
right?)
Robby
On Monday, November 19, 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can
integrate it into rackunit? -- Matthias
On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs
We use test in PLAI, and I suggested it in that context (eg,
unification, where you don't care about the gensym'ed names of logic
variables), which is probably why it got called that.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Yeah, that is very nice! (It
Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with check not test tho,
right?)
Indeed; Jonah was writing w.r.t plai, which uses test. Should use check-
in rackunit.
I noticed that this also violates, from the rackunit docs:
Although checks are implemented as macros, which is necessary to grab
On 11/19/12 8:20 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:
Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with check not test
tho, right?)
Indeed; Jonah was writing w.r.t plai, which uses test. Should use
check- in rackunit.
I noticed that this also violates, from the rackunit docs:
Although checks are
I think you should just stick (except @racket[check-whatever],
since its first/second argument is a match pattern) or something like
that into the docs in your pull request.
Also test cases: I think there is a test suite for rackunit somewhere;
let me know if you have trouble with it and I can
Predicates in general would be really awesome. I think the testing
infrastructure for Sperber's book (DMDA) has something like this.
Making it lightweight is what matters most, whether through a new
match form or a more general predicate form.
Shriram
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:25 PM, David Van
That might be nice, but a form for including a match pattern seems
like something that would be really great to have.
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, David Van Horn dvanh...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On 11/19/12 8:20 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote:
Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with
rackunit has check-pred, of course.
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi s...@cs.brown.edu
wrote:
Predicates in general would be really awesome. I think the testing
infrastructure for Sperber's book (DMDA) has something like this.
Making it lightweight is what
(? P) = (lambda (x) (match x [P true] [_ false]))
I like this quite a bit. It wouldn't be crazy to add it as
match-pred(icate) right next to match-lambda, match-let, and friends (
I think it is better to have a check-match since that way people are
more likely to find it.
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz j...@cs.brown.edu wrote:
(? P) = (lambda (x) (match x [P true] [_ false]))
I like this quite a bit. It wouldn't be crazy to add it as
Gotcha. match-pred can be a separate thing.
check-match can also let you use the identifiers bound in the match with an
optional third argument, which relies on more than match-pred anyway.
That's what I'm doing.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.eduwrote:
I think I've successfully sent a thingie to you:
https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/171
Let me know if I Did It Wrong. This is the first time I've clicked
the Pull Request button on Github.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz j...@cs.brown.edu wrote:
Gotcha. match-pred can be
17 matches
Mail list logo
