Typos:
- "*" remove a bound ==> "*" removes a bound
- All examples should read (versions ...), not (version ...)
~slg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 6:27 PM, Sage Gerard
wrote:
> I'm trying to learn how to write syntax classes. My intended macro expresses
>
Hello. The docs at
https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/places.html?q=places#(def._((lib._racket%2Fplace..rkt)._dynamic-place))
state:
"The module-path argument must not be a module path of the form (quote sym)
unless the module is predefined (see module-predefined?).”
Is this true? I
I'm trying to learn how to write syntax classes. My intended macro expresses a
set of Racket versions, either as inclusive intervals or as exact versions. In
an interval, "*" remove a bound.
- (version "6.5") means exactly version "6.5", as does (version ("6.5" "6.5"))
- (versions ("7.0"
Oh wow, that's impressively better than what I wrote! I didn't know one
could have *recursive* macros, to say nothing about the proper usage of
syntax-parse.
Thank you very much for your quick answer!
-
Sergiu
On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 at 11:03:49 PM UTC+1 sorawe...@gmail.com
wrote:
syntax-parse can already perform pattern matching. No need to use match
(define-syntax (multi-compose stx)
(syntax-parse stx
[(_ f:expr g:expr)
#'(compose f g)]
[(_ f:expr funcs:expr ...)
#'(compose f (multi-compose funcs ...))]))
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:37 PM
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 6:01:52 PM UTC+1 unlimitedscolobb wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 5:49:43 PM UTC+1 hen...@topoi.pooq.com
> wrote:
>
> A macro might be able to generate either of the above from
>> (comp f g h k)
>> .
>>
> Indeed. I'm re-reading the docs on macros
Are you using the “How To Design Programs” textbook? It’s free, online, and
written by the team that developed Racket:
https://htdp.org/2020-8-1/Book/index.html
Indeed, it would not be a stretch to say that Racket and this textbook are part
of the same project.
How To Design Programs (or
Stepping through the code with the drracket debugger and inspecting the
values on the way may also be a good way to identify areas where your code
doesn't work like you had expected.
Maybe write some more testcases / example applications of your function and
see which inputs already work and
I'm porting existing code that is embedding racket and I'm going from
racket-bc to racket-cs.
In racket-bc, the code is calling scheme_eval_string() and
scheme_eval_string_all().
I don't see a direct replacement for these functions in racket-cs. Based
on the embedding example in the docs,
Thanks for providing the fix.
This is most likely the cause, as my own test program is essentially the
same as yours, except that I collect the samples separately rather than
checking for the memory decrease immediately.
Alex.
On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 at 10:11:25 AM UTC+8 Matthew
10 matches
Mail list logo
