I've been using using Racket (and DrRacket) to teach programming
to architecture students. These are not sophisticated users, so any
move that makes it more difficult for them to use Racket is not good
news.
What happened to the batteries included motto?
Just my 0.1 cents.
Best,
António.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz j...@gnu.org wrote:
Here's hope that down the line there'll be binary+source packages that
end users can install with the same ease as today.
Matthew's email mentioned this a little, but the plan is that:
$ raco pkg install drracket
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
To put it another way and overstate a little: I'm trying to get buy-in
from dev to make the switch to packages wholesale. The little bit of
staging in the plan is to make the conversion itself easier, and not to
simplify
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
i...@juanfra.info wrote:
On 05/20/13 23:24, Carl Eastlund wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On 2013-05-20 14:42:15 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Eventually, when the dust
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Antonio Menezes Leitao
antonio.menezes.lei...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
I've been using using Racket (and DrRacket) to teach programming
to architecture students. These are not sophisticated users, so any
move that makes it more difficult for them to use Racket is not
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Eric Dobson eric.n.dob...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I follow on why binary packages make it easier to reduce
dependencies between packages, or why binary packages offer faster
installs.
I'm guessing that binary packages prevent cyclic dependencies between
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Antonio Menezes Leitao
antonio.menezes.lei...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
I've been using using Racket (and DrRacket) to teach programming
to architecture students. These are not sophisticated
Yes, I think
address ? address : #f
is right, while host not found should change to something like host
lookup failed.
At Tue, 21 May 2013 04:57:25 +0300, Alex Moiseenko wrote:
Hi. I've successfully started Racket 5.3.4.7 with Geiser server through JNI +
SDL2 on Android (and this
At Tue, 21 May 2013 00:09:49 -0700, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
To put it another way and overstate a little: I'm trying to get buy-in
from dev to make the switch to packages wholesale. The little bit of
staging in
Jay McCarthy wrote:
If you have the source, then you need all the phase = 1 dependencies,
but if you just have the binary then you only need the phase = 0 deps.
That's assuming that you want to run the source, but I think that the
people who are arguing about still having the source available in
On 5/20/13 4:42 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
I used to think that we'd take advantage of the package manager by
gradually pulling parts out of the Racket git repo and making them
packages.
Now, I think we should just shift directly to a small-ish Racket core,
making everything else a package
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Eric Dobson eric.n.dob...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I follow on why binary packages make it easier to reduce
dependencies between packages, or why binary packages offer faster
On 05/21/13 12:21, Carl Eastlund wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
i...@juanfra.info wrote:
On 05/20/13 23:24, Carl Eastlund wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On 2013-05-20 14:42:15 -0600, Matthew Flatt
At Tue, 21 May 2013 10:46:29 -0400, David Van Horn wrote:
On 5/20/13 4:42 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
This plan has two prominent implications:
* The current git repo's directory structure will change.
Will this directory structure change have an impact on how modules are
referenced?
At Tue, 21 May 2013 05:29:19 -0600, Jay McCarthy wrote:
If you have the source, then you need all the phase = 1 dependencies,
but if you just have the binary then you only need the phase = 0 deps.
That's the right idea, but not precisely correct. If you `(require (for
syntax ...))' a module,
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Concretely, new repositories that are just a subset of the current
repo would be off-by-one in directory structure compared to a normal
package. Each package should correspond to a subtree starting from
the collects level, not the parent of collects. We could
[keeping the different subject since this is still about the repo.]
Yesterday, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
One nice thing about the current repo organization is that push
notifications for every part of the PLT codebase go to all of the
developers.
Will that still be available in this
We already have a system for constructing a script that can move files
around and adjust content as needed: git.
As long as some of us are trying to write that script while others are
changing the existing directories and files, there will be collisions.
We won't come up with a scripting system
18 matches
Mail list logo
