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
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Eli is right in principle. I sense that we are facing the same kind of
problems we faced when
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 between
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 development is ongoing,
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 racket.
I agree with
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 stepper,
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
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
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu 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
On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu 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
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 via
require.
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
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
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
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;
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org 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
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
`match' also currently adds a syntax
On Aug 13, 2011 1:35 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org
wrote:
10 minutes
On Aug 13, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
10 minutes ago, Sam
Two minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011 1:35 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM,
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011 1:35 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sat,
On Aug 13, 2011 2:13 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
Two minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011 1:35 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58
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
cannot read
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, though.
24 matches
Mail list logo
