Re: [racket-dev] generic binding forms

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Stephen Chang wrote: > Hi dev, > > I've noticed that Racket has a lot of convenient binding forms but > they don't fit together unless someone does it manually (for example > there's match-let and match-let-values, but no match-for). > > As an educational side pro

Re: [racket-dev] net/http-client

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > > I feel that the only thing it could do better is support two more > options for #:data: > - A input-port? to read from and copy to the HTTP connection > - A (-> output-port? void) function to call with the HTTP connection's > output port to

Re: [racket-dev] net/http-client

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jay McCarthy > wrote: >> >> I feel that the only thing it could do better is support two more >> options for #:data: >> - A input-port? to read from and copy to the HTTP connection >> - A (-> output-p

Re: [racket-dev] generic binding forms

I've been wanting a match-for for quite some time, but there are design decisions to be made in such cases. Non-linear patterns are tricky to coordinate - should all clauses of a for/fold be considered part of the same match pattern? How about for*/fold? (My opinions are yes then no). If you hav

Re: [racket-dev] generic binding forms

What are the performance implications of this design? Specifically how do overlapping uses fare in the two systems? Microbenchmarks okay for now. -- Matthias On Aug 26, 2013, at 12:54 AM, Stephen Chang wrote: > Hi dev, > > I've noticed that Racket has a lot of convenient binding forms but >

Re: [racket-dev] Lists aren't sets, but have set-like operations

I like this, except now the hash sets have too little exposed. There isn't a special sequence-syntax that I can get a hold of for faster iteration when I know the type of data I'm working with. -Ian - Original Message - From: "Matthias Felleisen" To: "Carl Eastlund" Cc: "J. Ian Johnson"