Thanks, these emails explain things fairly clearly. It's worth noting that as more functions get added to racket, it becomes more likely to trip across this. In particular, we hit this only because range was added between 5.2 and 5.3.
--Dan On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Asumu Takikawa <as...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On 2012-10-23 08:48:35 -0700, Dan Grossman wrote: > > Thanks, David.* I would be interested in someone walking through how > this > > behavior arises -- as well as the design issue regarding the "hopeless > > top-level" > > A few months ago, I collected all of the instances of "the top-level is > hopeless" that I could find from the archives and collected them here: > https://gist.github.com/3083053 > > I think this e-mail in particular is relevant: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2008-September/027474.html > > Cheers, > Asumu >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
