Re: [racket-users] How to improve compile times?

2017-04-27 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Dupéron Georges wrote: > However, I'm not sure what operations can cause compile-time code to > be run in this situation. My (possibly incorrect) understanding is > that macros are executed only once (when expanding the code), but the > code to the

Re: [racket-users] Announcing Leibniz, a new language in the Racket universe

2017-04-27 Thread Konrad Hinsen
Hi Dmitry, > You may remember me from this topic: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/racket-users/E6utg2Pv5hA where > I looked for a scientific language and a tool for code generation. Yes, I remember! > Leibniz seems to be very general. Is generation of (C or other) code > from Leibniz

Re: [racket-users] How to improve compile times?

2017-04-27 Thread Dupéron Georges
Thank you Matthew for the explanation. If I understand correctly, * Alex Harsanyi's start-up time is due to run-time (phase 0) initialisation code in the required libraries, including things like (define v costly-expression), which look like they could be saved as constants, but actually

[racket-users] Racket v6.9

2017-04-27 Thread Vincent St-Amour
Racket version 6.9 is now available from http://racket-lang.org/ --- Security Announcement: A security vulnerability in the `racket/sandbox` library and Typed Racket allowed malicious Typed Racket code to escape the sandbox. This vulnerability has been fixed in Racket version 6.9. Anyone

Re: [racket-users] Re: Proper non-tail recursion?

2017-04-27 Thread brendan
Dr. Felleisen, Thanks for the informative response. Is Racket the only language with unbounded recursion depth as far as you know? And with respect to implementation, can you explain the role of the one extra bit that you mention? A number of functional languages targeting platforms like the

Re: [racket-users] Re: Proper non-tail recursion?

2017-04-27 Thread Hendrik Boom
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote: > > i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection > > with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient. > > That

Re: [racket-users] Racket v6.9

2017-04-27 Thread tuxic
Hi, ...it looks like, that the REPL still states to be verion 6.8 of racket ? (x86_84/Linux) Cheers Meino On 04/27 03:47, Vincent St-Amour wrote: > Racket version 6.9 is now available from > > http://racket-lang.org/ > > --- > > Security Announcement: > > A security vulnerability in

Re: [racket-users] Re: Proper non-tail recursion?

2017-04-27 Thread Jon Zeppieri
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Justin Zamora wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: >> >> OCaml does handle tail calls properly. But proper tails calls are not >> the subject of this discussion. The original post was explicitly

Re: [racket-users] Re: Proper non-tail recursion?

2017-04-27 Thread Jon Zeppieri
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote: > i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection > with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient. That would be a rather contentious claim, as it rules out OCaml, for example.

Re: [racket-users] Re: Proper non-tail recursion?

2017-04-27 Thread Justin Zamora
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > > OCaml does handle tail calls properly. But proper tails calls are not > the subject of this discussion. The original post was explicitly about > non-tail calls and how, in Racket, you cannot exhaust the stack > without

Re: [racket-users] Re: Proper non-tail recursion?

2017-04-27 Thread Scott Moore
On the other hand, if I recall correctly SML has the same behavior as racket. I think the implementation uses a chain of "stacklets" that are heap allocated. On Apr 27, 2017, 8:07 PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri , wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hendrik Boom

Re: [racket-users] Re: Proper non-tail recursion?

2017-04-27 Thread Raoul Duke
i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection with having such support. well, at least necessary if not sufficient. On Apr 27, 2017 4:01 PM, "brendan" wrote: > Dr. Felleisen, > > Thanks for the informative response. Is Racket the only language

Re: [racket-users] Re: Proper non-tail recursion?

2017-04-27 Thread Jon Zeppieri
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Jon Zeppieri wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Raoul Duke wrote: >> > i should think any "real" fp would support it. where real is a bijection >> >