#t argument to it.
What's the fix here? Do a per-version switch if we're running 6.3? Or is
there a cleaner solution?
Regards,
- Philip Blair
On 10/25/2015 5:18 PM, Alexis King wrote:
I have built a very small, very incomplete implementation of R7RS in Racket.
You can install the “r7rs” package, or
I had missed bcrypt while looking, it would seem. Thank you for telling
me my options!
Regards,
- Philip B.
On 9/28/2015 4:54 PM, John Clements wrote:
On Sep 28, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Philip Blair <peblair...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I am considering a little project which will i
Hello everyone,
I am considering a little project which will involve calling some FFI
functions in some C++ code. Now, since the Racket FFI binds to C, I know
that I'll need to make a wrapper file, which is fine. My question: How
would something like this potentially be distributed (in a form
I don't believe there is a way to do what you are looking to do within
ISL+. To import *just* those two things in full-fledged Racket, one
would do (you may or may not already know this):
(require (only-in math/number-theory factorize))
(require (only-in racket/list remove-duplicates))
The
Perhaps, I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's an *explicit*
convention; however, as far as I've seen, it typically is used for
function variants (more specifically, I *usually* see it used to
distinguish multiple functions which do more or less the same thing with
different input forms).
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 4:22:19 PM UTC-4, John Carmack wrote:
How do you include a racket module in an R6RS program?
I have remote.rkt in the same directory as test.scm.
With R5RS I could do (#%require remote.rkt), but that doesn’t work, and I
tried various things in the
Sorry for the delay (I was moving earlier this week).
Thank you for taking a crack at the task. One question I have is whether or
not the scopes feature is something which I can more or less count on being
available in future versions of Racket (I understand that it's from a
snapshot and might
abstraction.
At Thu, 7 May 2015 07:29:48 -0700 (PDT), Philip Blair wrote:
On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 11:02:33 PM UTC-4, Matthew Flatt wrote:
I wonder whether whether expanding to `module+` might be a better
direction. A rough expansion of your example might be
#lang racket/base
?
*Disclaimer: There's a decent chance that any such placement of the overhead
is a figment of my imagination and, in reality, pushing it to phase 0 will make
no difference.
Regards,
- Philip Blair (belph)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Racket Users
9 matches
Mail list logo
