It appears that the expansion of (module* m #f ...) occurs in a fresh
store, but before running the inner module's `#%module-begin` binding.
To see this, run the program at https://gist.github.com/2991214 , and
note that in module-begin is printed only once, but the expansion
of `m` fails,
The expansion of submodules is intended to have a fresh store, just
like the expansion of any module. The `#f' initial import is intended
to be something like using `(submod ..)' as the initial language,
except importing all internal bindings of the module instead of its
exports.
Can Typed Racket
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
The expansion of submodules is intended to have a fresh store, just
like the expansion of any module. The `#f' initial import is intended
to be something like using `(submod ..)' as the initial language,
except importing
Did you use `raco docs' to open the documentation page?
No.
All I did was to access the Help Desk from DrRacket's Help menu.
BTW, this is a fresh install, after uninstalling the previous version.
I can see the wrong links in the file index.html, in
AppData/Roaming/Racket/5.3.0.11/doc/
Hi,
Given that Racket implements the hyperbolic functions
sinh, cosh, and tanh, I would like to suggest that it also
provides the inverse functions asinh, acosh and atanh.
For the moment, I'm living with my own definitions but
it would be nicer if these were pre-defined.
Best,
Antonio.
I think I misunderstood your complaint. If you change the example to
(module+ sub
(#%module-begin (m)))
then there's no error. So, I think you're running into the old
only-form-in-module-just-might-expand-to-#%module-begin problem.
The usual solution is form `m' to check whether it's
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
I think I misunderstood your complaint. If you change the example to
(module+ sub
(#%module-begin (m)))
then there's no error. So, I think you're running into the old
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:50:27 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
The problem (I
think) is that the implicit `require` of `(submod ..)` happens
*before* the expansion of `#%module-begin` inside the submodule.
That's the same for a top-level module M whose initial language is some
other module L,
Sam, can you focus on cases of submodules for which you can guarantee that
#%module-begin is okay and reject others [with an explicit, informative error
message]? -- Matthias
On Jun 25, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:50:27 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Sam, can you focus on cases of submodules for which you can guarantee that
#%module-begin is okay and reject others [with an explicit, informative error
message]? -- Matthias
I'm not entirely sure what you mean
The largest part of my commit today concerns a re-organization of
the documentation for lang/htdp* functions. In the past we lived with
lists of strings that were eventually turned into a quasi-defproc.
I have scribblized the docs BUT this means having one set of defprocs
kind of abstracted
On 2012-06-25 20:35:21 -0400, as...@racket-lang.org wrote:
| racket/generics: add contract combinator
|
| The generics library now generates a `name/c` macro
| for a generic interface `name`. The combinator can be
| used to contract instances (or constructors) of a
| generic interface across
This is not directly related to your particular commit, but if I make
a make-prime-dict, does apply a contract at that point (using
'contract')? If so, who are the parties that get blamed?
Robby
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:35:21
On 2012-06-25 20:15:49 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
This is not directly related to your particular commit, but if I make
a make-prime-dict, does apply a contract at that point (using
'contract')? If so, who are the parties that get blamed?
The short answer is: the generated contract can be
On 2012-06-25 21:28:52 -0400, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
(provide/contract
[make-int-dict
(- key-value-list?
(simple-dict/c
[dict-ref (-* (simple-dict? symbol?) (any/c) integer?)]
[dict-set (- simple-dict? symbol? integer? simple-dict?)]
[dict-remove
On 06/25/2012 06:57 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:35:21 -0400, as...@racket-lang.org wrote:
| racket/generics: add contract combinator
|
| The generics library now generates a `name/c` macro
| for a generic interface `name`. The combinator can be
| used to contract instances (or
What do you mean by made opaque by key/c?
Robby
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On 2012-06-25 21:28:52 -0400, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
(provide/contract
[make-int-dict
(- key-value-list?
(simple-dict/c
[dict-ref (-*
Great, thanks!
Robby
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:15:49 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
This is not directly related to your particular commit, but if I make
a make-prime-dict, does apply a contract at that point (using
'contract')? If
Oh, I see what you mean now. Thanks.
And yes, if you can't catch the values passed to the constructor,
then you aren't going to be guaranteeing that the implementation
behaves parametrically anyways!
Robby
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On 2012-06-25
On 2012-06-25 20:17:33 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
IIUC from your later message, you've implemented the generics
analogue of object/c (per-instance contract), whereas
prop:dict/contract is closer to class/c (per-type contract). It's a
little fuzzy because prop:dict/contract hacks in
On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:17:33 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
IIUC from your later message, you've implemented the generics
analogue of object/c (per-instance contract), whereas
prop:dict/contract is closer to class/c (per-type contract). It's a
little fuzzy
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:17:33 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
IIUC from your later message, you've implemented the generics
analogue of object/c (per-instance contract), whereas
prop:dict/contract is
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
Much like interface contracts mediate between the creator of a class (that
implements the interface) and the client of that class (that instantiates
objects from that interface),
Of course I meant the client that instantiates objects
On 06/25/2012 09:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:17:33 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
IIUC from your later message, you've implemented the generics
analogue of object/c
On 06/24/2012 10:40 AM, Antonio Menezes Leitao wrote:
Hi,
Given that Racket implements the hyperbolic functions
sinh, cosh, and tanh, I would like to suggest that it also
provides the inverse functions asinh, acosh and atanh.
For the moment, I'm living with my own definitions but
it would be
[Hit Reply instead of Reply All, so fixing that here.]
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2012-06-25 20:17:33 -0600, Ryan
On 06/25/2012 10:25 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
[Hit Reply instead of Reply All, so fixing that here.]
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu
On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:30 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 10:25 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
[Hit Reply instead of Reply All, so fixing that here.]
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM,
28 matches
Mail list logo
