Hi Dave:
The use of the scribble-math package is great for the kind of documents that
you plan to write in Scribble.
For embeddings I use the excellent package from Shriram, to include Google
Forms and YouTube videos. You can check the link:
https://github.com/shriram/scribble-embedding.
Sorry for the earlier confusion!
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:48 PM Nathaniel W Griswold
wrote:
> Ok. Thanks.
>
> > On Dec 8, 2020, at 6:47 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
> >
> > Right, it is probably both things. I ran your program on yesterday's git
> build and it still returns #false, but for the
Ok. Thanks.
> On Dec 8, 2020, at 6:47 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
> Right, it is probably both things. I ran your program on yesterday's git
> build and it still returns #false, but for the mutability reason, not the bug
> that Jon mentioned.
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:45 PM
Right, it is probably both things. I ran your program on yesterday's git
build and it still returns #false, but for the mutability reason, not the
bug that Jon mentioned.
Robby
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:45 PM Nathaniel W Griswold
wrote:
> I think it is something more. The copied set is giving
I think it is something more. The copied set is giving completely different
elements. If i loop over the copied set i get 32 values from 0 to like 31, when
i have in fact added 1000 random elements to the original set before copying.
Nate
> On Dec 8, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
No, I don't think that's it. The issue is that one is a mutable set and the
other isn't, so they aren't equal (even if their elements aren't equal).
> (equal? (mutable-seteqv) (list->seteqv '()))
#f
Maybe you wanted to call list->mutable-seteqv? Or maybe just start with an
immutable set?
Robby
Thanks. Switching to 7.9 now.
Nate
> On Dec 8, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>
> I think that's this bug
> [https://github.com/racket/racket/commit/543dab59640fa5e911443baaadaae471406dbf40],
> which should be fixed in 7.9. - Jon
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:19 PM Nathaniel W Griswold
I think that's this bug
[https://github.com/racket/racket/commit/543dab59640fa5e911443baaadaae471406dbf40],
which should be fixed in 7.9. - Jon
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:19 PM Nathaniel W Griswold
wrote:
>
> I don’t know if i’m missing something or what, but the following is confusing
> me:
>
>
I don’t know if i’m missing something or what, but the following is confusing
me:
(let ([test (mutable-seteqv)])
(for* ([i (in-range 1000)]
[j (random 0 1000)])
(set-add! test j))
(let ([test-copy (set-copy test)])
(printf "test-copy=~a\n" (set->list test-copy))
(printf
Hello,
I've found out that compose in Typed Racket has the type
(: compose (All (a b c) (-> (-> b c) (-> a b) (-> a c
which means that Typed Racket's compose can only combine two functions at a
time.
In untyped code, I tend to use compose to combine more functions (e.g., 7),
so I wrote
-
Second call for papers
22nd Symposium on Trends in Functional Programming
tfp2021.org
-
Did you
Tim, if you paste your code in the definitions in DrRacket (with the #lang
racket line), and run it (as a module, thus), you obtain this in the
interactions window:
3
10
6
The `3` is because of the `(add1 (call/cc ... 2)))` expression, which is
reduced to `(add1 2)` with the side effect of
12 matches
Mail list logo
