[racket-users] GitHub repository templates

Hi, GitHub and GitLab both have a 'template repository' function - https://help.github.com/en/articles/creating-a-template-repository - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/project-templates/contributing I made a racket-package GitHub template repo at:

[racket-users] same-project language comparison opportunity

If someone has time to write a Java-subset-to-x86 compiler in Racket, with certain restrictions, they can make a partly-scientific blog post or paper that compares it to these: http://thume.ca/2019/04/29/comparing-compilers-in-rust-haskell-c-and-python/

Re: [racket-users] Why struct type doesn't include field names?

But yes, this is directly related to the discussion above because with the field name information, you can write your own accessor. Yes it will be a way to go in Racket 2. But for now, https://docs.racket-lang.org/struct-define/index.html might be a good workaround for your problem.

Re: [racket-users] Why struct type doesn't include field names?

On 6/15/19, Sorawee Porncharoenwase wrote: > First of all, . won’t work in standard Racket because . has a special > meaning (see > https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/reader.html#%28part._parse-pair%29). The `read-cdot` parameter can change the standard meaning

Re: [racket-users] managing competing access to filesystem within places

I guess one way to look at it is that place-channels have guarantees that are like [1] when putting and guarantees that are like regular channels when getting. Or, put another way, you can't sync on sending with place-channels, only on receiving. So it is a similar idea, yes. I'm not sure exactly

Re: [racket-users] managing competing access to filesystem within places

> On Jun 15, 2019, at 8:31 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > > Place channels are asynchronous, not syncronous (i.e. you don't have > two-way rendez-vous). So the call to put returns immediately in > `loopback-p` before the other end receives the result. And now the > next iteration of the loop's get

Re: [racket-users] managing competing access to filesystem within places

Place channels are asynchronous, not syncronous (i.e. you don't have two-way rendez-vous). So the call to put returns immediately in `loopback-p` before the other end receives the result. And now the next iteration of the loop's get is in parallel to the put from the previous iteration's. A

Re: [racket-users] managing competing access to filesystem within places

> On Jun 14, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Matthew Butterick wrote: > > But even after approving a lock request from a certain rendering place, the > lock server would end up with repeat lock requests from there. BTW here's a minimal example showing the puzzling message-garbling behavior between

Re: [racket-users] for loop: any way to access the whole list?

thanks, the whole idea is to localize the identifiers to the for (preferred) or the let*. Reaching back to get the whole list when the for has bound the same identifier is probably asking a bit much. Within the given strictures I probably need to bind the list in the let* and use a

Re: [racket-users] Why struct type doesn't include field names?

First of all, . won’t work in standard Racket because . has a special meaning (see https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/reader.html#%28part._parse-pair%29). But yes, this is directly related to the discussion above because with the field name information, you can write your own accessor. #lang