On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 00:22, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
I've pushed a fix to the git repo.
Thanks!
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
If you run this program in Racket,
(let ([restart void])
(letrec ([forward-reference (lambda () maybe-ready)] ; affects compiler
[dummy1 (let/cc k (set! restart k))]
[dummy2 (displayln maybe-ready)]
[maybe-ready 'ready])
(let ([rs restart])
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
I like the idea of adjusting the semantics of internal definitions and
leaving `letrec' alone.
While this seems like a nice change, how does it interact with
internal syntax definitions? If there are internal syntax
This was a bug in the planet commandline's packaging code. When the
documentation was named something like doc.scrbl (doc*.scrbl, really)
then the packager was dropping it from the .plt file that it built. So
if you re-build using the currently pushed planet tool, you should be
in good shape (you
On May 20, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
Would it make sense to have a new construct, say letrec-super-star,
that did one of those things and then use that as the core form in
Racket (that's also a big change, but probably smaller than changing
letrec itself).
One day we should
the matrix prototype teachpack uses snips like the images in drracket and sets
up some sharing with drracket. Perhaps that is a cause of the problem with
snip-class readers?
On May 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Danny Yoo wrote:
I'm using syntax/modcode, and am running across an error that I
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On May 20, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
Would it make sense to have a new construct, say letrec-super-star,
that did one of those things and then use that as the core form in
Racket (that's also a big
At Fri, 20 May 2011 11:03:04 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
I like the idea of adjusting the semantics of internal definitions and
leaving `letrec' alone.
While this seems like a nice change, how does it interact
At Fri, 20 May 2011 11:36:48 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On May 20, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
The second printout is ready because locations for all of the
`letrec'-bound variables are allocated before the right-hand sides are
evaluated --- which means before the
At Fri, 20 May 2011 10:55:36 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
Can we really change the semantics of letrec in such a fundamental way?
Sure. :) But it's easier to not change `letrec', of course.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
Let me make my proposals (2 and 3) more precise because your response suggests
they were too short.
1. We could make internal define the primary vehicle for definitions, i.e., not
compile thru letrec. As far as I am concerned, your change to the language to
allow defines in many more places
On May 20, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
-- I think my preferred solution would be to wrap letrec so that
continuations grabbed during the setup set up a continuation mark that
labels them as
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Let me make my proposals (2 and 3) more precise because your response
suggests they were too short.
1. We could make internal define the primary vehicle for definitions, i.e.,
not compile thru letrec. As far
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:25 PM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
On May 20, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Let me make my proposals (2 and 3) more precise because your response
suggests they were too short.
1. We could make internal define the primary vehicle
At Fri, 20 May 2011 16:39:23 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
2. The semantics for internal defines would be more Algol like, meaning your
example would immediately behave like let and thus be fast.
Ok, I see how that's a better way of saying what I agree with (i.e.,
what I think Robby
At Fri, 20 May 2011 14:25:54 -0700, John Clements wrote:
Perhaps this goes without saying, but I'm hoping that if internal
defines don't expand into letrec any more, that they expand into some
similar form that has syntactically obvious scoping; I like the fact
that the scope of
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 20 May 2011 16:39:23 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
2. The semantics for internal defines would be more Algol like, meaning your
example would immediately behave like let and thus be fast.
Ok, I see how that's
On May 20, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
I see no reason to change `letrec'.
I think letrec's behavior with call/cc on the right-hand side exposes ref cells
and that will bite us again and again. That's why I think changing it would
make sense. Then again, the bites are rare,
18 matches
Mail list logo
