On 10/16/2012 05:43 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Plus, we should just have match built into all of the binding forms.
+5
Neil ⊥
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>> Another data point: If "define/match" expands to a "define" of a procedure
>> that dispatches to a set of implementations based on a pattern-match of
>> actual arguments... then the name is exactly what I'd expect for such a
>> feature in a Scheme dialect.
>
> That is, in fact, exactly what it
For the record, I find having two things that combine match and define
in different ways where the name difference is - vs / and swapping the
order of the words to be quite unfortunate.
Plus, we should just have match built into all of the binding forms.
Robby
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM, El
A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Eli, can you explain again -- perhaps in different words -- why
> define/match is a bad name? I understand that we have match-define
> and define/match now. While I agree that having two of these forms
> with remotely related functionality is possib
This answers it. John just rephrased my guess (last two lines) at your possible
answer.
(I really dislike match-define. But it's historic so we're stuck.)
On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Just now, John Clements wrote:
>>
>> If this were about changing the name of match-
On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Just now, John Clements wrote:
>>
>> If this were about changing the name of match-define to
>> define/match, I'd have no objection, but the problem is that we now
>> have two forms with names that are identical, modulo a stylistic
>> choice.
>
Just now, John Clements wrote:
>
> If this were about changing the name of match-define to
> define/match, I'd have no objection, but the problem is that we now
> have two forms with names that are identical, modulo a stylistic
> choice.
It's not -- they have two different meanings.
> It's as t
On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Eli, can you explain again -- perhaps in different words -- why define/match
> is a bad name? I understand that we have match-define and define/match now.
> While I agree that having two of these forms with remotely related
> function
Eli, can you explain again -- perhaps in different words -- why define/match is
a bad name? I understand that we have match-define and define/match now. While
I agree that having two of these forms with remotely related functionality is
possibly confusing, I don't see why match-define is really
I second this sentence, except for the 'Scheme dialect' part.
On Oct 16, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> John Clements wrote at 10/16/2012 04:51 PM:
>> Data point: I have no idea what define/match does, and the name by itself
>> does nothing to enlighten me.
>>
>
> Another data
Two hours ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> `match-define*` would be much worse -- it isn't a variant on
> `match-define`, nor does it resemble any of the other `match-X`
> forms.
The difference is very similar to the difference between
`match-lambda', `match-lambda*', and `match-lambda**', in
On 2012-10-16 15:27:46 -0400, mfl...@racket-lang.org wrote:
> 843c722 Matthew Flatt 2012-10-16 15:10
> :
> | add an argument to `{chaperone,impersonate}-prompt-tag'
> |
> | The new argument gets to filter results that come from a
> | non-composable continuation that replaces one delimited
> | by a
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> (FWIW, it is not really wrong to consider this behavior a bug at a
> number of different levels (why rely on timestamps? why does
> compilation not produce the same thing each time?) and it is something
> we've struggled with for a long tim
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> John Clements wrote at 10/16/2012 04:51 PM:
>
>> Data point: I have no idea what define/match does, and the name by itself
>> does nothing to enlighten me.
>
> Another data point: If "define/match" expands to a "define" of a procedure
> that
John Clements wrote at 10/16/2012 04:51 PM:
Data point: I have no idea what define/match does, and the name by itself does
nothing to enlighten me.
Another data point: If "define/match" expands to a "define" of a
procedure that dispatches to a set of implementations based on a
pattern-ma
On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, we
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> > A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> >> > Just now, Jay McCarth
A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >> > Just now, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> >> >> match-define is something else
> >> >
> >>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> > Just now, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> >> match-define is something else
>> >
>> > Indeed it is -- which makes the whole thing even more conf
A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > Just now, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> >> match-define is something else
> >
> > Indeed it is -- which makes the whole thing even more confusing. I
> > can't help imagining a newbie's reaction when t
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Just now, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> match-define is something else
>
> Indeed it is -- which makes the whole thing even more confusing. I
> can't help imagining a newbie's reaction when they're told that
>
> Oh, here's your mistake -- you've u
To be clear, we don't have any steps between sync in perforce and running
racket. This is for "end" users who don't edit or compile source. It is
also part of a toolchain where Racket is just one optional piece and so we
can't really spare the time to build zos at this particular point. We
really d
At Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:04:32 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> Besides what Eli says, another approach is to run 'raco setup -Dxi'
> after getting things out of perforce. That uses hashes for the files
> to determine what to compile (so nothing will get compiled if the zos
> are actually right), but it
Just now, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> match-define is something else
Indeed it is -- which makes the whole thing even more confusing. I
can't help imagining a newbie's reaction when they're told that
Oh, here's your mistake -- you've used match-define where you should
have used define/match.
IMO
match-define is something else
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Two days ago, stch...@racket-lang.org wrote:
>> @deftogether[(
>> +@defform[(define/match (head args) match*-clause ...)]
>> @defform[(match-lambda clause ...)]
>> @defform[(match-lambda* clause ...)]
>> @de
Besides what Eli says, another approach is to run 'raco setup -Dxi'
after getting things out of perforce. That uses hashes for the files
to determine what to compile (so nothing will get compiled if the zos
are actually right), but it updates the timestamps (so racket won't
get confused). This is p
Two days ago, stch...@racket-lang.org wrote:
> @deftogether[(
> +@defform[(define/match (head args) match*-clause ...)]
> @defform[(match-lambda clause ...)]
> @defform[(match-lambda* clause ...)]
> @defform[(match-let ([pat expr] ...) body ...+)]
I don't know if nobody paid any attention to t
A few minutes ago, Dan Liebgold wrote:
> It seems like the timestamps among just the .zo and .dep files will cause us
> issues as well due to how Perforce works. When you sync, Perforce sets the
> timestamp of the file to the time of sync. If I sync all of a Racket
> distribution my file timestamps
It seems like the timestamps among just the .zo and .dep files will cause
us issues as well due to how Perforce works. When you sync, Perforce sets
the timestamp of the file to the time of sync. If I sync all of a Racket
distribution my file timestamps will not be coherent from Racket's point of
vi
On Oct 15, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Any difference with 9dd83008a6 (just pushed)?
I just built from source.
Short version: yes, much better.
Longer version: DrR still has somewhat longer pauses, but they're now in the
6-10ms range:
GC: 0:min @ 242,118K(+159,225K)[+31,728K]; f
30 matches
Mail list logo
