On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Doug Williams wrote:
>> On the case-> problem, it seems it no longer supports anything but ->. Is
>> there something I am missing there?
>
> This is a current limitation for case-> as provided by racket/cont
On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Doug Williams wrote:
> On the case-> problem, it seems it no longer supports anything but ->. Is
> there something I am missing there?
This is a current limitation for case-> as provided by racket/contract. When I
tackle the conversion of case-> to proxies/chaperon
The new case-> only supports simple contracts, that's right. If you
have more complex ones that it would be helpful to support (and can
share them), that would help us guide our efforts.
Thanks,
Robby
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Doug Williams
wrote:
> The main problem I'm having is that the
The main problem I'm having is that the code has been around awhile and
hasn't been fully converted to Racket - in particular it uses the scheme
language (instead of the racket language) and uses (require (lib contract)).
All of that seems to mean that I can't just add #:flat? #t - I get a message
> * Greg Cooper
> - FrTime Tests
Done.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:07:18, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> * Kathy Gray
> - Test Engine Tests
Done
-Kathy
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
At Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:31:43 -0600, Doug Williams wrote:
> Matthew, would it make more sense to have unsafe-vector-ref (and related
> functions) be the more general function and unsafe-vector*-ref be the one
> that doesn't work on chaperoned vectors? That is just swap the definitions.
> That way u
7 matches
Mail list logo
