Re: [racket-dev] racket/stream

2011-03-25 Thread Geoffrey S. Knauth
On Mar 17, 2011, at 15:34 , Matthias Felleisen wrote: I think we should stay away from 'stream' here. If Racket had grown out of the Unix tradition, I'd be fine with it. But we partially grew out the functional community, and they use 'stream' for a narrower concept. Maybe a silly

Re: [racket-dev] racket/stream

2011-03-25 Thread Eli Barzilay
A week ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: At Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:13:26 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote: I see your point about generator, and so I agree that we should use a different term. I'm not too happy with the term producer, but I don't yet have a better

Re: [racket-dev] change default binding of c:x; c:w to save definitions as... ?

2011-03-25 Thread Eli Barzilay
On Monday, John Clements wrote: On Mar 21, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote: We can do whatever is standard on whatever platform nowadays thanks to gr2. Well, that simplifies things; any objection to just adding shift-command-S for Save Definitions As... to the Mac platform? Is

Re: [racket-dev] change default binding of c:x; c:w to save definitions as... ?

2011-03-25 Thread Robby Findler
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote: On Monday, John Clements wrote: On Mar 21, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote: We can do whatever is standard on whatever platform nowadays thanks to gr2. Well, that simplifies things; any objection to just adding

Re: [racket-dev] change default binding of c:x; c:w to save definitions as... ?

2011-03-25 Thread Eli Barzilay
30 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote: On Monday, John Clements wrote: Well, that simplifies things; any objection to just adding shift-command-S for Save Definitions As... to the Mac platform? Is there any reason

Re: [racket-dev] [racket] struct-copy with sub-types

2011-03-25 Thread Robby Findler
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Nadeem Abdul Hamid nad...@acm.org wrote: Yes, those would help, though some of the syntax is off in the examples (copy-struct instead of struct-copy -- and the chum one is missing bruce as the struct-expr). Yeah, I realized the errors after re-building the

[racket-dev] Alpha-equivalence for Racket

2011-03-25 Thread Carl Eastlund
Has anyone ever implemented alpha-equivalence for fully expanded Racket programs? It seems like it might be useful for testing macros, and I'd rather not duplicate effort if it's already been done. Carl Eastlund _ For list-related administrative

Re: [racket-dev] Alpha-equivalence for Racket

2011-03-25 Thread Jay McCarthy
Not exactly, Check Syntax is looking at the binding information in the syntax objects to connect bindings and bound occurrences. Carl wants to compare two syntax objects. 2011/3/25 Jos Koot jos.k...@telefonica.net: I suppose Check Syntax already does alpha conversion. Anyway it distinguishes