[racket-users] TLS via make-ssl-connect@?

[Sage Gerard]

I've seen articles say "SSL" when they mean "TLS". When I read the docs for 
make-ssl-connect@, it does not clarify what algorithm backs use of HTTPS. Only 
that OpenSSL is used.

Does make-ssl-connect@ track current recommendations like TLS 1.2 or 1.3, or is 
it fixed to some version of SSL?

~slg

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/t-JBfoazXqCWIYKge0qFCn9IYCYEdzkSQD9F6IrFWT8VcrziFFcgHVz_tZolCnyFd7yq26lpLahbKBNg9Pt_mIBkwMZfjL2iGQw4bZDAVe0%3D%40sagegerard.com.

Re: [racket-users] compose in Typed Racket

[unlimitedscolobb]

On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 9:51:50 PM UTC+1 Ben Greenman wrote:

> >> A package for compose-n and compose-3 to like 10 or 20? 
>
> Yes 
>
> I like the idea of _small packages that do one thing_ better than 
> _one-stop all-utility packages_ ... but do what you think makes sense. 
>

Sounds reasonable to me, I'll create that package soon.

Thanks for the advice.
 

> >> Someday later, perhaps poly dots and #:rest-star can combine to 
> >> improve the built-in type. 
> >> 
> > 
> > From my naive viewpoint, I don't really see other natural ways of 
> improving 
> > the type of compose other than what I wrote, the problem being that 
> writing 
> > the type for arbitrary-arity composition would require specifying 
> equality 
> > between the return type of every function and the argument type of the 
> > preceding one. I'm not sure even Coq and Agda have that facility 
> directly, 
> > certainly not Haskell or Idris to the best of my knowledge. I don't 
> expect 
> > them to go beyond binary compose, because it's sufficient to do any 
> > compositions. It's that in Racket I find writing chains of nested 
> compose 
> > calls somewhat clunky. 
>
> Typed Racket already has some domain-specific ideas to support the 
> #:rest-star option. The equality-chaining constraint is definitely 
> new, but doesn't seem out of the question. 
>
>
> https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/blob/master/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/rep/type-rep.rkt#L586-L612


I see, #:rest-star seems quite powerful.  I'm curious to see what kind of 
stuff will come out of it.

I think other languages (Coq Agda Haskell Idris) have a harder time 
> here because they want to support currying. And even if they added 
> #:rest-star logic, their users might call it an anti-pattern because 
> it doesn't fit with partial application. 
>

That's a good point.  I started forgetting how important implicit currying 
is in these languages.

-
Sergiu

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/164ca420-75dc-4241-b512-dea79fe6e0aan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [racket-users] compose in Typed Racket

[Ben Greenman]

>> A package for compose-n and compose-3 to like 10 or 20?

Yes

I like the idea of _small packages that do one thing_ better than
_one-stop all-utility packages_ ... but do what you think makes sense.

>> Someday later, perhaps poly dots and #:rest-star can combine to
>> improve the built-in type.
>>
>
> From my naive viewpoint, I don't really see other natural ways of improving
> the type of compose other than what I wrote, the problem being that writing
> the type for arbitrary-arity composition would require specifying equality
> between the return type of every function and the argument type of the
> preceding one.  I'm not sure even Coq and Agda have that facility directly,
> certainly not Haskell or Idris to the best of my knowledge.  I don't expect
> them to go beyond binary compose, because it's sufficient to do any
> compositions.  It's that in Racket I find writing chains of nested compose
> calls somewhat clunky.

Typed Racket already has some domain-specific ideas to support the
#:rest-star option. The equality-chaining constraint is definitely
new, but doesn't seem out of the question.

https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/blob/master/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/rep/type-rep.rkt#L586-L612

I think other languages (Coq Agda Haskell Idris) have a harder time
here because they want to support currying. And even if they added
#:rest-star logic, their users might call it an anti-pattern because
it doesn't fit with partial application.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFUu9R5o7WMvewXTLgafdX-Ei%2B6MnsM13xHW-pauSGs3scTJBA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to define a substruct with the same fields as its superstruct?

[Laurent]

or
(struct fruit edible () #:transparent)

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:51 PM Noah Ma  wrote:

> (struct fruit () #:super struct:edible #:transparent)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFG7FgVg7D-dUg3Xcw_vHU9%2BXSjRNhjuRVAMLVYNPnZRYXFbRQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CABNTSaGbHpCRknYnE06ozkrWSqxhwfNcE7xDFWWVP4hvRg-WXw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] compose in Typed Racket

[unlimitedscolobb]

On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 5:49:43 PM UTC+1 hen...@topoi.pooq.com 
wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:16:16PM -0800, unlimitedscolobb wrote: 
>
> > I'm not sure whether macros could be of use here. I'll give it a think. 
>
> Idea: Have a look at parendown 
> https://docs.racket-lang.org/parendown/index.html 
>
> It would let you write 
> (compose f 
> (compose g 
> (compose h k))) 
> as 
> ( compose f 
> #/ compose g 
> #/ compose h k 
> ) 
>
> Which at least cuts down on the heavy indentation and parenthesis pile-up. 
>
> Interesting, thank you. I haven't yet tried parendown, but the more I see 
mentions of it the more likely I'm to try it out :-)
 

> A macro might be able to generate either of the above from 
> (comp f g h k) 
> . 
>
Indeed. I'm re-reading the docs on macros and I think I see a clean and 
clear way to achieve what I need.

I'll post my attempt as soon as I get the time to write it.

-
Sergiu

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/94f9eb1e-00bf-4ac7-81bd-24dc4235d8a0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [racket-users] compose in Typed Racket

[Hendrik Boom]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:16:16PM -0800, unlimitedscolobb wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 11:50:26 PM UTC+1 Ben Greenman wrote:
> 
> > > If the answer is no, is there any interest in including these three 
> > > functions (as well as compose-5, 6, 7, 8) into Typed Racket? 
> >
> > I think these would be excellent in a package. 
> >
> > A package for compose-n and compose-3 to like 10 or 20?
> 
> I'm still not sure about how high the granularity of packages may get in 
> Racket, but I'd like to share these functions, because they feel very 
> useful to me.
>  
> 
> > Someday later, perhaps poly dots and #:rest-star can combine to 
> > improve the built-in type. 
> >
> 
> >From my naive viewpoint, I don't really see other natural ways of improving 
> the type of compose other than what I wrote, the problem being that writing 
> the type for arbitrary-arity composition would require specifying equality 
> between the return type of every function and the argument type of the 
> preceding one.  I'm not sure even Coq and Agda have that facility directly, 
> certainly not Haskell or Idris to the best of my knowledge.  I don't expect 
> them to go beyond binary compose, because it's sufficient to do any 
> compositions.  It's that in Racket I find writing chains of nested compose 
> calls somewhat clunky.
> 
> I'm not sure whether macros could be of use here.  I'll give it a think.

Idea:  Have a look at parendown 
https://docs.racket-lang.org/parendown/index.html

It would let you write
  (compose f 
(compose g
  (compose h k)))
as
  (  compose f
  #/ compose g
  #/ compose h k
  )

Which at least cuts down on the heavy indentation and parenthesis pile-up.

A macro might be able to generate either of the above from 
  (comp f g h k)
.

-- hendrik

> 
> -
> Sergiu
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/d0eacc64-c11b-4edd-aa38-c62c15494c06n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20201210164936.elqk6qsc76yhn4wc%40topoi.pooq.com.

Re: [racket-users] Re: changing my email address on the package server?

[Jay McCarthy]

The expected thing for you to do is to

1. Create a new account
2. Add that new account as an author to the packages
3. Remove your old account as an author to the packages

If you want, though, I can do a search & replace in the database for you

Jay

--
Jay McCarthy
Associate Professor @ CS @ UMass Lowell
http://jeapostrophe.github.io
Vincit qui se vincit.


On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 1:06 AM je...@lisp.sh  wrote:

> It occurs to me that another approach here -- possibly a necessary one
> given the current setup of the package server -- would be to manually
> intervene. Presumably, it's possible for a package server admin to just
> manually associate a package with a certain account?
>
> On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 6:44:41 AM UTC+1 je...@lisp.sh wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to change my email address on the package server? It
>> doesn't appear so, but perhaps I'm missing something. If not, what would be
>> the recommended way of accomplishing an email change? I can create a new
>> account, of course. But how to claim ownership of an existing package? Can
>> one "abandon" a package with account X and "claim" the package with account
>> Y?
>>
>> Jesse
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/d9c9ce65-2070-460c-b679-fa2e187da704n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAJYbDa%3DdDWCq9qTMGNJ49HtCFzchPeeFykqqSMEDeau4xEq-vg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to define a substruct with the same fields as its superstruct?

[Noah Ma]

(struct fruit () #:super struct:edible #:transparent)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFG7FgVg7D-dUg3Xcw_vHU9%2BXSjRNhjuRVAMLVYNPnZRYXFbRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[racket-users] Is it possible to define a substruct with the same fields as its superstruct?

[Dimaugh Silvestris]

I'm trying different ways to define a struct that has the same fields as 
its superstruct without adding any new field, but all I get is errors 
saying struct expects a list of fields.
Something like:
(struct edible (name grams) #:transparent)
and then
(struct fruit #:super edible #:transparent)
or
(struct fruit edible #transparent)

Of course I could simulate this behavior myself creating different structs 
and then writing accesors and predicates that would work on all of them, 
like:
(define edible? (or? fruit? vegetable?  fish?))

But I'd rather ask first if there's an in-built, more elegant way of doing 
this.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/8723311b-62d6-482e-a0ca-c020b32f5366n%40googlegroups.com.