Re: [racket-dev] What are single flonums good for?

2012-09-16 Thread Niklas Larsson
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

[racket-dev] syntax parsing: must be a nice pattern-y way to do this

2012-09-16 Thread John Clements
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

Re: [racket-dev] syntax parsing: must be a nice pattern-y way to do this

2012-09-16 Thread Ryan Culpepper
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

Re: [racket-dev] What are single flonums good for?

2012-09-16 Thread Matthias Felleisen
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

Re: [racket-dev] Documentation for dynamic-require and related terms is confusing.

2012-09-16 Thread Matthias Felleisen
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