On 4/2/12 8:42 PM, Nadeem Abdul Hamid wrote:
OK, thanks. Just wanted to make sure something wasn't broken. It's
only a minor inconvenience - my students are using the version from
the download page, while I usually use one built from source, but I've
just been using the regular 5.2.1 version to run their programs. In
any event, perhaps the documentation needs to be updated: the entry:
http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/eopl/index.html#(form._((lib._eopl/eopl..rkt)._provide))
points to the mzscheme version of provide.
(Sorry I missed this thread.) Thanks for the report. I filed a bug
report and will fix soon.
David
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Robby Findler
<ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
Because it was changed to be based on "#lang racket" instead of the
(old) "#lang mzscheme" not too long ago. I think there was a post here
(or on the users's list) about this, but I'm not sure that this
particular point was mentioned there, so I can see how you'd be
surprised.
Is this causing you trouble with classes or similar? Would a "#lang
eopl/mzscheme" or something like that be useful for backwards
compatibility? (You'd still need to use that #lang line, tho, since
the regular eopl language is now changed for good.)
Robby
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Nadeem Abdul Hamid<nad...@acm.org> wrote:
How come when building Racket from the latest source of the repository
(at least as of 3 days ago), #lang eopl doesn't recognize
(all-defined) as a valid provide spec and wants (all-defined-out)
instead?
--- nadeem
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
