The addition of `stream' makes sense to me. What were the arguments
against?
(For further pull requests, please include test cases --- which in this
case would have caught the use of `stream-empty' instead of
`empty-stream'.)
At Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:23:09 -0500, Daniel King wrote:
> I initiated a p
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 09:40, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> (For further pull requests, please include test cases --- which in this
> case would have caught the use of `stream-empty' instead of
> `empty-stream'.)
Ah, I just realized there's a tests folder at racket/collects/tests.
I'll update the pull r
I'll make this change.
At Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:25:34 -0500, David Van Horn wrote:
> It would be nice if gcd and lcm were extended to rational numbers, which
> seems in-line with Scheme's philosophy (but not standards) on numbers.
>
> (define (gcd-rational . rs)
>(/ (apply gcd (map numerator r
At Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:13:54 +0100, Marijn wrote:
> Matthew has been trying to determine the cause via private email.
> Matthew, has any of the data I provided so far pointed you anywhere?
> Otherwise is there something else I can do to help debug?
I hope to investigate more soon, and I expect I'l
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 09:51, Daniel King wrote:
> Ah, I just realized there's a tests folder at racket/collects/tests.
> I'll update the pull request.
Done.
--
Dan King
College of Computer and Information Science
Northeastern University
_
For l
Thanks, Ryan. Now everybody's not angry with me.
Well, Eli still is, but that's nothing new.
Neil T
(I'm just kidding, Eli.)
On 12/07/2011 11:52 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
I've pushed a temporary fix to the dist-specs, and meta/check-dists now
runs without errors. Hopefully the nightly builds
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> The addition of `stream' makes sense to me. What were the arguments
> against?
I don't know that any were articulated yet, but what would be the
difference between 'stream' and 'list'?
Robby
_
At Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:58:45 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > The addition of `stream' makes sense to me. What were the arguments
> > against?
>
> I don't know that any were articulated yet, but what would be the
> difference between 'stream' a
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:58:45 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> > The addition of `stream' makes sense to me. What were the arguments
>> > against?
>>
>> I don't know that any were articulate
I think the docs for syntax-id-rules have 2 lines swapped. Here's a patch:
diff --git a/collects/scribblings/reference/stx-patterns.scrbl
b/collects/scribblings/reference/stx-patterns.scrbl
index 83d13bc..209961b 100644
--- a/collects/scribblings/reference/stx-patterns.scrbl
+++ b/collects/scr
Hello,
I was trying to write some code to process a few items at a time from a
list. Nothing I came up with looked great, so I wrote an "in-slice"
sequence function:
> (for/list ([e (in-slice 3 (in-range 8))]) e)
'((0 1 2) (3 4 5) (6 7))
Patch below. Comments?
Thanks,
Dave
diff --git a
11 matches
Mail list logo
