This commit broke two tests that check that current-check-around is
doing its job. I changed it to use an effect, but I'm not sure if this
makes current-check-around useless.
It also broke another test that relied on tests returning #t. I don't
think that's important though.
Jay
On Fri, Oct 7, 2
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> Wait, now I realize I misunderstood Sam's proposal. Doesn't this just
> make all structs into lists? Like back to the bad old days of 1995?
No, that was just an example of how to define the `make-foo', `foo-x',
etc functions. More
Wait, now I realize I misunderstood Sam's proposal. Doesn't this just
make all structs into lists? Like back to the bad old days of 1995?
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
I'm afraid omit-defined-values didn't work. I'm not entirely sure how
to carry through Jay's proposal, and I also need something that will
work inside the local context of ASL (which imposes some
restrictions). Joe Politz suggested I just go with SET! instead --
roughly,
-->
(begin
(define-str
Ya, that sounds much better
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>>
>> You would have to expand to something that includes both the static
>> and runtime pieces:
>>
>> (begin (define-values ( ... ) ... )
>> (d
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>
> You would have to expand to something that includes both the static
> and runtime pieces:
>
> (begin (define-values ( ... ) ... )
> (define-syntaxes ( ... ) ... ))
>
> But that's going to be difficult because ideally you'd just use
One of the bindings that
(define-struct foo (a b) #:transparent #:mutable)
binds is 'foo', and it is bound the static information about the
structure, basically:
(define-syntax foo (list #'make-foo #'foo? (list #'foo-a #'foo-b)
(list #'set-foo-a! #'set-foo-b!)))
(But not exactly right
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> And if it isn't clear, since it is looking at foo's static binding,
> your macro is only binding the values from define-struct, not the
> syntaxes.
Jay, can you elaborate? What is doing the looking -- the match struct
clause? What does it m
And if it isn't clear, since it is looking at foo's static binding,
your macro is only binding the values from define-struct, not the
syntaxes.
Jay
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
> wrote:
>> What exactly does t
On Oct 8, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Okay, here's what I've done for the upcoming release. (It is a kind-of
> patch on the existing setup, but perhaps that's appropriate, since the
> right long-term solution is to move everything to #lang.)
>
> When a file is opened, and the langu
10 matches
Mail list logo
