Jay,
I agree with Greg, too. For me, that involves abandoning my patch, and
a whole load of git admin the sum of which effort is greater than you
just doing it. So, please do and reject my pull request (if you can).
Regards,
Tim
On 08/05/15 11:20, Jay McCarthy wrote:
I agree with Greg, that
That's good to know about namespaces being intended to be for runtime
reflection.
I understand what you mean when you say bindings and lexical context, but
in what specific way do you mean in the context of this issue?
I also feel that I should mention that I am having difficulty wrapping my
Okay. I just pushed something. I did a simple test and made sure the
newlines aren't there. Can you check if it works for you in your
specific scenario?
Jay
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Tim Brown tim.br...@cityc.co.uk wrote:
Jay,
I agree with Greg, too. For me, that involves abandoning my
I agree with Greg, that seems like the right thing. Tim, do you want
to make a pull request or do you want me to just take care of it?
Jay
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Greg Hendershott
greghendersh...@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds good. Although I haven't used it in awhile, I recall needing
Additionally if it were it's own lang extension, the tool using this
information wouldn't need to do the parsing. The reader could extract all the
;;; definitions into a submodule that the tool requires.
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 11:44:59 AM UTC-7, Matthew Flatt wrote:
I have no problem with
Jay,
Thank you.
On 08/05/15 11:42, Jay McCarthy wrote:
Okay. I just pushed something. I did a simple test and made sure the
newlines aren't there. Can you check if it works for you in your
specific scenario?
That seems to do the trick for me.
My web-server challenges my Firefox, which in
How does this really differ from literate programming?
Deren
On May 4, 2015 7:39 PM, Neil Van Dyke n...@neilvandyke.org wrote:
For purposes of embedding docs for a package in its Racket source file(s),
anyone care whether I landgrab some names in the Scribble namespace (for
package metadata)?
I have this file:
#lang typed/racket
(provide x)
(define x : Natural 3)
(module* main racket/base
(require typed/racket/base)
(require/typed (submod ..)
[x Natural]))
I get this strange error message:
. . ../../../../../Applications/Racket/April-24/Racket
On 2015-05-08 17:26:05 -0400, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
I get this strange error message:
. . ../../../../../Applications/Racket/April-24/Racket
v6.2.0.2/collects/racket/contract/private/blame.rkt:143:0: x: broke its
contract
promised: #f
produced: 3
in: #f
contract from:
This appears to be a bug -- my guess is that the contract isn't
actually generated, and thus turns into `#f` -- that's what
`require/typed` expands to, before TR inserts the real contract.
Sam
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
alexan...@knauth.org wrote:
I have this file:
I also get a similar error message with this:
#lang racket/base
(require typed/racket/base)
(require/typed racket/math [pi Real])
. . ../../Applications/Racket/April-24/Racket
v6.2.0.2/collects/racket/contract/private/blame.rkt:143:0: pi: broke its
contract
promised: #f
produced:
This doesn’t happen if I change the language of the submodule to
typed/racket/base, so I’m guessing this is because require/typed isn’t meant to
be used in untyped code.
So should require/typed produce a syntax error when it’s used in untyped code
like this?
On May 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Sam
12 matches
Mail list logo
