On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> [*] As an example, rackunit might become dependent on drr in the
> future, if it becomes a drr plugin. The cost of that is obvious: you
> need drr to use rackunit. A possible solution to that, if it becomes
> necessary, is to have another
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
>> [*] As an example, rackunit might become dependent on drr in the
>> future, if it becomes a drr plugin. The cost of that is obvious: you
>> need drr to use rackunit. A possib
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>>
>>> [*] As an example, rackunit might become dependent on drr in the
>>> future, if it becomes a drr plugin. The cos
This resumes the other thread started by John, and it is only meant as a 'this
is good even if we can't define 'it'' message:
As some of you know, we're trying to use Racket for a router. Until now I
always wondered whether it would make any sense to have the clean separations
into small, tid
5 hours ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [*] As an example, rackunit might become dependent on drr i
Calling All Racketeers!
Join as at RacketCon, 23 & 24 July 2011.
http://con.racket-lang.org/
The schedule for RacketCon is now available, and includes
presentations by key members of the Racket team, including Matthew
Flatt on the future of Racket and Matthias Felleisen on the Program By
I just observed something that gave me a bit of a start; it appears to me that
bindings in the teaching languages are still parsed as top-level bindings, and
not as module bindings. This is weird, because I'm pretty confident that the
definitions get wrapped in a module before expansion. Howev
> I just observed something that gave me a bit of a start; it appears to me
> that bindings in the teaching languages are still parsed as top-level
> bindings, and not as module bindings. This is weird, because I'm pretty
> confident that the definitions get wrapped in a module before expansion
On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Stephen Chang wrote:
>> I just observed something that gave me a bit of a start; it appears to me
>> that bindings in the teaching languages are still parsed as top-level
>> bindings, and not as module bindings. This is weird, because I'm pretty
>> confident that
Hi all: it has been a little more than two months since I did that
wholesale checkin of some documentation testing scripts. Below
are the tests that have only been touched by me, so unless I hear
otherwise, I'm going disable these tests so they stop polluting the
drdr output.
There are a handful o
I've pushed a change to Racket's macro system that throws out the
syntax-certificate system and adds a syntax-taint system.
Syntax taints, like syntax certificates before, are intended to
protect macro expansions from abuse. "Abuse" means using
`local-expand' to extract a piece of an expansion, t
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I've pushed a change to Racket's macro system that throws out the
> syntax-certificate system and adds a syntax-taint system.
>
>
> Syntax taints, like syntax certificates before, are intended to
> protect macro expansions from abuse. "Abuse"
8 minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > I've pushed a change to Racket's macro system that throws out the
> > syntax-certificate system and adds a syntax-taint system.
> >
> >
> > Syntax taints, like syntax certificates before, are intended t
A few seconds ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 8 minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > > I've pushed a change to Racket's macro system that throws out the
> > > syntax-certificate system and adds a syntax-taint system.
> > >
> > >
> > > Syntax ta
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few seconds ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> 8 minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> > > I've pushed a change to Racket's macro system that throws out the
>> > > syntax-certificate syste
Excellent! Thanks, Matthew and Ryan for figuring out what appears to
be a promising approach to a gaping hole in our security picture.
Robby
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I've pushed a change to Racket's macro system that throws out the
> syntax-certificate system and a
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> * If you write program-processing tools or languages that use
> `syntax-recertify', you'll need to change them to use
> `syntax-disarm' and possibly `syntax-rearm'.
Does this change (more generally than the part I've quoted here) mean
At Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:34:19 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >
> > * If you write program-processing tools or languages that use
> > `syntax-recertify', you'll need to change them to use
> > `syntax-disarm' and possibly `syntax-rearm
> >> 8 minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Things you need to know:
> >> > >
> >> > > * When writing a macro (without `syntax-rules', `define-syntax-rule',
> >> > > or `syntax-id-rules'), apply `syntax-protect' to the m
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> >> 8 minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > Things you need to know:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > * When writing a macro (without `syntax-rules', `define-syntax-rule',
>>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:34:19 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> >
>> > * If you write program-processing tools or languages that use
>> > `syntax-recertify', you'll need to chang
21 matches
Mail list logo
