Re: [racket-users] Confused about syntax properties

> On 29 Jan 2017, at 11:21, Ben Greenman wrote: > > The third result is #f because in the third example, stx is `(annotate > (annotate 4 2))`. So the first pattern matches and `val` is the syntax > `(annotate 4 2)`. > > You can get a "strict" evaluation order by

Re: [racket-users] IMAP filter

Hi, Laurent, Laurent writes: > Hi there, > Just FYI, for code that you want to share in a simple way, you can use > pasterack.org (or gist.github.com ). Here's your > code: http://pasterack.org/pastes/5961 Thanks a lot for your information :-) Best Regards, Huang,

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

Curse my sausage fingers! That last send was unintentional. I've deleted it from the online Google Groups forum for the sake of future subscribers. I can understand wanting to minimize the distinction and in some ways make all core language, standard libraries, and community libraries equal. For

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

I like the current structure of the docs but Ethan's comments reminded of recent blog posts by Eric Raymond (of "Cathedral and the Bazaar" fame), who surprisingly advocates against "swarm design". The posts are about Rust but maybe it's something to keep in mind if the package system gets much

Re: [racket-users] Confused about syntax properties

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:06:30AM -0800, Matias Eyzaguirre wrote: > Hullo all, > > I'm messing around with syntax properties to try to get a feel for them, but > in one of my tests they aren't behaving the way I would expect them to. > > In my example the output is #f 1 #f, when I would have

Re: [racket-users] Confused about syntax properties

The third result is #f because in the third example, stx is `(annotate (annotate 4 2))`. So the first pattern matches and `val` is the syntax `(annotate 4 2)`. You can get a "strict" evaluation order by using `local-expand` inside the `annotate` macro. For example: #lang racket (define-syntax

[racket-users] Confused about syntax properties

Hullo all, I'm messing around with syntax properties to try to get a feel for them, but in one of my tests they aren't behaving the way I would expect them to. In my example the output is #f 1 #f, when I would have thought it would be #f 1 2. Why is the third result #f and not 2? #lang

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

-- Ethan Estrada | CTO & COO M: 801-669-1598 | E: et...@metapipe.com The Startup Building | 560 S 100 W STE 1 (sent from my phone) On Jan 29, 2017 06:45, "Matthew Flatt" wrote: At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), Ethan Estrada wrote: > My only real beef with the Racket

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

Honestly I've never even thought about this. I just look at the "require" form at the top of the docs. Since I always use racket/base as my main language, everything feels like extra. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800

Re: [racket-users] IMAP filter

Hi there, Just FYI, for code that you want to share in a simple way, you can use pasterack.org (or gist.github.com ). Here's your code: http://pasterack.org/pastes/5961 On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Huang, Ying wrote: > Hi, All, > > Previously I use imapfilter

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), Ethan Estrada wrote: > My only real beef with the Racket docs are the layout of packages; > there is no clear distinction between docs for standard library items > and docs for community provided libs. That's intentional. I'd say that the absence of a