On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> Assuming that it is KMP, is there a reason why we're not using Boyer-Moore
>> here instead? My understanding was BM was faster than KMP for common
>> situations.
IIUC, the BM speedup comes from skipping over portions of the text. In
our ca
Hello,
I wasn't sure if this or the users list was the right mailing list for
bug reports so I guessed a bit. After passing a project through raco
exe and raco distribute (Racket 5.3.1), I get the following output
right after invoking the resulting executable:
standard-module-name-resolver: colle
Simpler example:
(require racket/splicing racket/stxparam)
(define-syntax-parameter f #f)
(define x 0)
;; 0
(syntax-parameterize ([f (make-rename-transformer #'x)])
(splicing-syntax-parameterize ([f (syntax-parameter-value #'f)]) f))
;; 0
(splicing-syntax-parameterize ([f (make-rename-transformer
At Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:22:17 -0700, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I'm staring at do-find-string-all's implementation, and right before the
> string-matching logic, there's a mysterious comment "Knuth Bendix" in
> there. I'm staring at the code some more, and it looks more like KMP
> (Knuth-Morris-Pratt) to m
I'm staring at do-find-string-all's implementation, and right before the
string-matching logic, there's a mysterious comment "Knuth Bendix" in
there. I'm staring at the code some more, and it looks more like KMP
(Knuth-Morris-Pratt) to me.
(I have no idea what the Knuth-Bendix algorithm looks lik
I've pretty much made up my mind on this, so please don't feel like you
have to take time to respond point-by-point. Unless you've seen a gaping
hole in my reasoning, anyway, then by all means, have at it.
On 11/26/2012 05:41 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Two hours ago, Neil Toronto wrote:
For exam
(require racket/stxparam racket/splicing)
(define-syntax-parameter f #f)
(splicing-syntax-parameterize ([f #t])
(begin-for-syntax (printf "~a~%" (syntax-parameter-value #'f)))
(void))
This prints #f.
If I instead add a macro indirection
(define-syntax (blah stx) (syntax-case stx () [(_ f) (p
On 2012-11-29 13:28:03 -0700, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> That is my suggestion to developers.
>
> I think all installed packages should be either local links or named
> by the naming service. All the other package source modes are for
> people doing creative things, like maintaining their own sets of
>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2012-11-29 06:52:07 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> The changes are small, so far, but the most prominent change is that
>> the interpretation of a package source is now determined syntactically.
>> If you want to install from a local dire
On 2012-11-29 06:52:07 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> The changes are small, so far, but the most prominent change is that
> the interpretation of a package source is now determined syntactically.
> If you want to install from a local directory "fish-tank", you need to
> write
>
> raco pkg install
On 2012-11-29 10:06:49 +0100, Michael Sperber wrote:
> Sam also asked about the REPL output:
>
> > (queue 1 2 3)
> - : (Queue Any)
> #
>
> I gather that in earlier versions of Racket, I'd get (Queue
> Positive-Byte) or something similar. Is
>
> (ann (queue 1 2 3) (Queue Integer))
>
> the right
On 11/29/12 1:45 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM, David Van Horn wrote:
On 11/29/12 7:31 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
Having something like the "var" pattern can be useful for macros that
expand into uses of match, if the macro doesn't want to expose that a
bound v
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM, David Van Horn wrote:
> On 11/29/12 7:31 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>>
>> Having something like the "var" pattern can be useful for macros that
>> expand into uses of match, if the macro doesn't want to expose that a
>> bound variable will be a match pattern and the
On 11/29/12 7:31 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
Having something like the "var" pattern can be useful for macros that
expand into uses of match, if the macro doesn't want to expose that a
bound variable will be a match pattern and therefore must not be "_" or
"...". Granted, there are ways around this
Thanks, Matthew. I should have added an empty set case too, since that
allocates (as opposed to list and mlist). Submitted another pull request (this
time with a test, sorry about that).
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, Novembe
+1
On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:31 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> Having something like the "var" pattern can be useful for macros that expand
> into uses of match, if the macro doesn't want to expose that a bound variable
> will be a match pattern and therefore must not be "_" or "...". Granted,
> th
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> There should be an menu item about fourth from the end called "Spell
> Check String Constants".
Not in my case.
> It won't work if you don't have aspell installed, however.
That's my case!
Cheers
P.
_
Racket Deve
I've pushed a few changes in consultation with Jay.
The changes are small, so far, but the most prominent change is that
the interpretation of a package source is now determined syntactically.
If you want to install from a local directory "fish-tank", you need to
write
raco pkg install fish-tan
There should be an menu item about fourth from the end called "Spell
Check String Constants".
It won't work if you don't have aspell installed, however. Do you have
it installed? If so, I'm guessing it probably still won't work because
it won't find the binary, sadly. I don't have cygwin on my win
That's not free-identifier=? so it wouldn't be optimized.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Tobias Hammer"
To: "Matthew Flatt" , "J. Ian Johnson"
Cc: "dev"
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:49:15 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] for loop singleton optimization
Having something like the "var" pattern can be useful for macros that
expand into uses of match, if the macro doesn't want to expose that a bound
variable will be a match pattern and therefore must not be "_" or "...".
Granted, there are ways around this, but personally I think it would be
nice if
That works fine (i.e., does not get changed to `in-value').
Matching `set' as a literal in `syntax-case' works by identifier
binding, not symbolically. If `set' has a different binding than the
one exported by the module, then the optimizing case doesn't match.
At Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:49:15 +0100,
Hi,
in the release notes of 5.3.1, there's:
• DrRacket can spell-check string constants (enable this in the Edit menu).
I can't find anything related in the Edit menu, and searching for
"spell" in the help desk turns out empty.
(On Windows, in case it matters).
Cheers
P.
___
What about
(let ([set (lambda (a) (set 1 2 a))])
(for/list ([x (in-set (set 3))])
x))
?
Tobias
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:24:12 +0100, J. Ian Johnson
wrote:
Cool. I submitted a pull request with this change since it's always an
improvement.
Thanks,
-Ian
- Original Message -
Thanks Asumu for making those fixes!
Asumu Takikawa writes:
> On 5.3.1, you'll have to add extra type instantiations in the tests
> or just remove the test files.
I was also e-mailing Sam about this, so some wires got crossed: Sam,
Asumu's fixes make the build go through now.
Sam also asked a
25 matches
Mail list logo
