On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Justin Zamora jus...@zamora.com wrote:
A sentence like that would be a good replacement for the awful,
Racket is a programming language currently on the front page of
racket-lang.org
We are men of science; untested hypotheses do not become us. Luckily,
your
I assume it's not news that racket.org is owned by a museum curator in
sweden?
(He says after typing racket.org)
S.
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Noel Welsh noelwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Justin Zamora jus...@zamora.com wrote:
A sentence like that would be a
2011/5/5 Stephen Chang stch...@ccs.neu.edu:
So I'm struggling with redex again and I cant figure out a way to
utilize any of the previously mentioned tricks. I just included what I
have below and I described what I'm trying to do. Hopefully someone
will have some time to take a look? :)
I'm
Racket -- Squash your bugs with it!
On 05/05/2011 01:26 PM, Rex Page wrote:
Bugs in your programs?
Racket can help.
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Racket is the coolest programming language on earth.
Spend a bit of time with it, and your programs will
grow more beautiful
Is it possible to tell Scribble to use the documentation for one
binding for another binding? For example, Typed Racket has a binding
for `for' which is semantically the same as `for' from `racket/base',
but wraps a trivial type annotation around it. Rather than having an
entry in the TR docs
I think the right way to do this is to use defidthing with a minimal
description and a pointer over to the racket for.
Unless it is literally the same binding (re-exported), in which case
you can make scribble do that.
(Macros can tell the difference, after all.)
Robby
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at
-Original Message-
From: dev-boun...@racket-lang.org
[mailto:dev-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Bellani
snip
--
Eduardo Bellani
omnia mutantur, nihil interit.
The word 'omnia' frequently leads to contradictions, particularly when
applying a sentence containing
In retrospect I think this post was a bit opaque. So, some exposition:
We have a hypothesis: changing the description of Racket will increase
adoption. We can measure this and optimise for it. The measure of
adoption could be doesn't bounce or downloads Racket, for example.
(Bouncing means
For what time period should we leave the description constant to test this
conjecture?
On May 6, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Noel Welsh wrote:
In retrospect I think this post was a bit opaque. So, some exposition:
We have a hypothesis: changing the description of Racket will increase
adoption.
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I think the right way to do this is to use defidthing with a minimal
description and a pointer over to the racket for.
That's certainly possible, but I don't think it's the right user
experience for someone
The technology Noel is suggesting randomly chooses whether to give the
current description, or some new description (which we would have to
write). Then it measures which description leads more people to
download Racket.
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu
I am with Sam on this one.
On May 6, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I think the right way to do this is to use defidthing with a minimal
description and a pointer over to the racket for.
Matthias Felleisen wrote at 05/06/2011 10:41 AM:
For what time period should we leave the description constant to test this conjecture?
Someone mathematically-inclined did something similar-sounding a
decade(?) ago, for US national political campaign fund-raising. From
what I could
During my experiments last week, I came up with two more wishes for Racket:
1. Python seems to provide the following unit testing functionality:
if a file/module is run as 'main', the test suites are run;
if it is required into some other file, the tests aren't run.
It looks truly
At Fri, 6 May 2011 11:22:48 -0400,
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
1. Python seems to provide the following unit testing functionality:
if a file/module is run as 'main', the test suites are run;
if it is required into some other file, the tests aren't run.
It looks truly convenient. I
On 05/06/2011 09:44 AM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
At Fri, 6 May 2011 11:22:48 -0400,
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
1. Python seems to provide the following unit testing functionality:
if a file/module is run as 'main', the test suites are run;
if it is required into some other file, the
Three minutes ago, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
At Fri, 6 May 2011 11:22:48 -0400,
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
1. Python seems to provide the following unit testing
functionality:
if a file/module is run as 'main', the test suites are run; if
it is required into some other file, the
Three minutes ago, Kevin Tew wrote:
racket -tm some_module.rkt runs the main function in some_module.rkt.
with the command-line arguments
(A trickiness with that is the fact that `main' should receive command
line arguments so composing multiple `main's is not straightforward.)
Welcome to
At Fri, 6 May 2011 11:51:08 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 6 May 2011 10:13:33 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
Is it possible to tell Scribble to use the documentation for one
binding for another binding?
An hour ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
The technology Noel is suggesting randomly chooses whether to give
the current description, or some new description (which we would
have to write). Then it measures which description leads more
people to download Racket.
The question is whether it
Can you define an other stuff non-terminal O:
(O hole )
and sprinkle some Os in A:
(A hole (in-hole (in-hole O ((in-hole O A) e)) (λ x (in-hole O A
Something along this line could work. But I would need side conditions
to make sure that the O doesnt mess up the A-ness property of
+1
On Friday, May 6, 2011, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 6 May 2011 11:51:08 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 6 May 2011 10:13:33 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
Is it possible to tell
22 matches
Mail list logo
