[racket-users] Re: Testing - mails sent from desktop mail client not received

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 21:20:24 -0500, George Neuner wrote: >You can send directly to racket-users@googlegroups.com Ok, that was interesting. I wrote: racket-users at googlegroups dot com and it appears that Gmane changed the address to its own relay. Stranger still,

[racket-users] Re: Testing - mails sent from desktop mail client not received

Hi Tim, On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:00 -0800 (PST), Tim Johnson wrote: >On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 1:02:20 PM UTC-9, Tim Johnson wrote: >> I am sending this from my browser, pointed at >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!newtopic/racket-users as a test. >> >> Although

Re: [racket-users] dynamic-require of a string

On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:46:38 PM UTC-8, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > You'll need to use `eval` to evaluate the module. > Interesting... If I want to add more context (for errors and such), is there a good way to use read-syntax and eval-syntax? -- You received this message because

Re: [racket-users] dynamic-require of a string

You'll need to use `eval` to evaluate the module. Something like this: http://pasterack.org/pastes/17703 Sam On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Dan Liebgold wrote: > I have an odd use case, but is there any way to supply a string of the > contents of a module to

[racket-users] dynamic-require of a string

I have an odd use case, but is there any way to supply a string of the contents of a module to something like require or dynamic-require? An example of my desired usage: http://pasterack.org/pastes/38798 Thanks, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [racket-users] syntax-class that is just a set of literals

Urg... google groups behaved oddly for me... I posted this original thread but it never showed up for me, so I posted a 2nd thread (the one you linked to). I'm not sure what actually happened, but at least the other thread has lots of good info. -- You received this message because you are

Re: [racket-users] syntax-class that is just a set of literals

Typo: I meant "the `define-literal-syntax-class` macro", from here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/racket-users/9e_oNlLODeY/MUqGM_r6BwAJ On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Ben Greenman wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Dan Liebgold

Re: [racket-users] syntax-class that is just a set of literals

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Dan Liebgold wrote: > First, I'm trying to define a syntax-class that is just a set of literals, > and I'm wondering if there is a slightly better way that this: > > * http://pasterack.org/pastes/86722 > > I'd just prefer to not

[racket-users] Re: Testing - mails sent from desktop mail client not received

On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 1:02:20 PM UTC-9, Tim Johnson wrote: > I am sending this from my browser, pointed at > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!newtopic/racket-users as a test. > > Although I have been receiving emails sent to the Racket Users email list >

[racket-users] Testing - mails sent from desktop mail client not received

I am sending this from my browser, pointed at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!newtopic/racket-users as a test. Although I have been receiving emails sent to the Racket Users email list (racket-users@googlegroups.com) as a subscriber, emails sent by me to the same list via my desktop email

[racket-users] syntax-class that is just a set of literals

Hi, A couple questions regarding literals in syntax-parse: First, I'm trying to define a syntax-class that is just a set of literals, and I'm wondering if there is a slightly better way that this: * http://pasterack.org/pastes/86722 I'd just prefer to not repeat all the literal