2012/9/15 Robby Findler :
>
> At this point, I'm still left wondering if Single-Flonums are good for
> anything, but I can imagine that they are good for not breaking old
> programs, so probably best to leave well enough alone.
>
One use case for singles is offloading computations to a graphics
ca
I want to apply a transformation to a nested pattern element.
To start with, suppose I have a (kind of useless) with-handlers that looks like
this:
(with-syntax
([((arg ...) ...)
#`((clause.input ...) ...)])
et-cetera)
That is, I've basically just renamed "clause.inpu
See 'define-template-metafunction' in
syntax/parse/experimental/template. Remember to change the relevant
occurrences of 'syntax' to 'template'.
Ryan
On 09/16/2012 08:31 PM, John Clements wrote:
I want to apply a transformation to a nested pattern element.
To start with, suppose I have a (ki
Suppose we had started Racket long ago and maintained it until now. Then we'd
be looking at 8bit, 16, 32, and 64 precision. In some N years from now, we may
need 128. (Actually there were machines in the past that did, but never mind.)
Could we separate precision and type into separate dimensi
I will second the idea behind this request. (I thought I had to use
dynamic-require's second argument in the summer, and after studying it for
quite a while, i was happy to figure out a way around it.)
On Sep 14, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> I just tried to figure out what the se
5 matches
Mail list logo