12 hours ago, John Clements wrote:
>
> What Eli is proposing, AFAICT, is not in fact a new abstraction, but
> a more disciplined--I might say, way *too* disciplined--use of the
> ones we have.
Let me put it in concrete terms: I'm the author of
racket/private/promise -- there's now a piece of code
On Aug 16, 2011, at 7:39 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eli is right in principle. I sense that we are facing the same kind of
>>> problems we faced when we c
On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>>
>> Eli is right in principle. I sense that we are facing the same kind of
>> problems we faced when we created mixins and then again when we created
>> continuation marks.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Eli is right in principle. I sense that we are facing the same kind of
> problems we faced when we created mixins and then again when we created
> continuation marks. We need annotations time and again and they couple parts
> of ou
6 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Eli is right in principle. I sense that we are facing the same kind
> of problems we faced when we created mixins and then again when we
> created continuation marks. We need annotations time and again and
> they couple parts of our system more closely
Eli is right in principle. I sense that we are facing the same kind of problems
we faced when we created mixins and then again when we created continuation
marks. We need annotations time and again and they couple parts of our system
more closely than necessary. Problem is, we don't seem to se
Four minutes ago, John Clements wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > A possible conclusion would be that it's useful to know these kind
> > of things about an expanded piece of syntax, and therefore more
> > macros should do that -- but that's unrelated from the stepp
On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Three minutes ago, John Clements wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
>>> Earlier today, Stephen Chang wrote:
It seems like most people agree that it's ok to add stepper syntax
properties to lazy rack
Three minutes ago, John Clements wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > Earlier today, Stephen Chang wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems like most people agree that it's ok to add stepper syntax
> >> properties to lazy racket.
> >
> > I agree with that in general while developm
On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Earlier today, Stephen Chang wrote:
>>
>> It seems like most people agree that it's ok to add stepper syntax
>> properties to lazy racket.
>
> I agree with that in general while development is ongoing, but
> eventually it should be disconnected
Earlier today, Stephen Chang wrote:
>
> It seems like most people agree that it's ok to add stepper syntax
> properties to lazy racket.
I agree with that in general while development is ongoing, but
eventually it should be disconnected too.
> The problem is that the lazy language is split betwe
Somehow I missed this entire thread. Some responses below.
> Let me try to say what I understand out loud:
>
> 1. The existence of Stepper knowledge in the Lazy compiler creates a
> 'spiritual' dependency between the Lazy language and a tool in DrRacket (=
> Tool world). QUESTION: does this know
10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> Is this just an argument about how to name these syntax properties?
Yes -- and that leads to more than "just the name".
> If so, I'm happy with whatever you think I should name it. That
> doesn't seem to get us anywhere on the other questions, tho
5 minutes ago, John Clements wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>
> > How about instead of "in spirit", we focus on program logic.
> > There is no semantic dependence on the typechecker -- Racket can
> > tell what the program does without it. However, programmers
> > ca
On Aug 13, 2011 2:13 PM, "Eli Barzilay" wrote:
>
> Two minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 2011 1:35 PM, "Carl Eastlund" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2011 1:35 PM, "Carl Eastlund" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli
Two minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2011 1:35 PM, "Carl Eastlund" wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay
>
On Aug 13, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> `m
On Aug 13, 2011 1:35 PM, "Carl Eastlund" wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay
wrote:
> >>> 10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>> 10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
`match' also currently adds a syntax property to help the Typed
>>
On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> 10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>> `match' also currently adds a syntax property to help the Typed
>>> Racket type checker understand the expansion. Like 'disappeared-
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> `match' also currently adds a syntax property to help the Typed
>> Racket type checker understand the expansion. Like 'disappeared-use
>> for Check Syntax, this property is in theory semantically
10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> `match' also currently adds a syntax property to help the Typed
> Racket type checker understand the expansion. Like 'disappeared-use
> for Check Syntax, this property is in theory semantically
> independent of Typed Racket, but only used there.
No, wh
`match' also currently adds a syntax property to help the Typed Racket
type checker understand the expansion. Like 'disappeared-use for
Check Syntax, this property is in theory semantically independent of
Typed Racket, but only used there. And I agree with Robby that I
think this is a good archit
On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> FWIW, there is precedent for this kind of thing, namely the properties
> that get added to syntax objects to tell check syntax about bindings
> that aren't in the fully expanded program (and yeah, I know there is a
> pending question about this
An hour ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> 1. The existence of Stepper knowledge in the Lazy compiler creates a
>'spiritual' dependency between the Lazy language and a tool in
>DrRacket (= Tool world). QUESTION: does this knowledge ever make
>sense outside of our tool suite? Could it b
An hour ago, John Clements wrote:
>
> Adding dev to followups, hope that's okay with all three of you.
>
> On Aug 12, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > The stepper has some function that annotates syntaxes with a
> > stepper specific value. Stephen wanted to use this function but
> >
FWIW, there is precedent for this kind of thing, namely the properties
that get added to syntax objects to tell check syntax about bindings
that aren't in the fully expanded program (and yeah, I know there is a
pending question about this; sorry I haven't had time to look into it
and straighten thi
Doesn't the same problem exist for other tools, such as the Tracer?
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:44 AM, John Clements wrote:
> That is, the code for lazy racket contains the knowledge about which things
> should be hidden by the stepper. I would argue, in fact, that this is the
> *right* place for such knowledge. In particular, suppose you're developing
> the lazy
On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:44 AM, John Clements wrote:
>
> Adding dev to followups, hope that's okay with all three of you.
>
> On Aug 12, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
>> A few seconds ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>>
>>> This sounds wrong. The only way there can be a dependency is v
Adding dev to followups, hope that's okay with all three of you.
On Aug 12, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few seconds ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>
>> This sounds wrong. The only way there can be a dependency is via
>> require. So how can it not be checkable, never mind copy or
32 matches
Mail list logo
