IIUC, this makes the limit thing -- and therefore sandboxes -- behave
*very* differently. The original intention was that the time limit is
on something similar to what you get with `time'.
A very visible way to see the effect of this change:
-> ,r racket/sandbox
-> (define e (make-evalu
Thanks!
I think Jay and I became confused about the purpose of
`call-with-limits` and thought it was supposed to constrain the time
used by evaluation, no matter what it tries to do.
We should revert the change, clarify the docs at `call-with-limits`,
and maybe add something else to `racket/sandb
I was going by the comment at the top of
/racket/src/racket/src/schvers.h, which says
X.Y.Z.W
...
Y>=90 means that this is working towards {X+1}.0,
and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for {X+1}.0
I can change the version number, but if it's causing problems, let's
figure out the rul
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that this is
working towards {X+1}.0, and
On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=9
At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > Here's the full comment:
> >
> > The version string has one of the forms:
> >X.Y
> >X.Y.Z Z != 0
> >X.Y.Z.W W != 0
> > where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-ne
On 11/25/2013 10:28 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where ea
Hi all,
Should dynamically required libraries induce a package dependency?
Take for example the "xrepl-lib" package. It currently depends on five
other packages, but I think two of them can be dropped and `raco setup`
won't complain.
On the other hand, XREPL may `dynamic-require` the macro stepp
Some package systems like dpkg have "recommended packages".
And if a package is dynamically needed, it should probably be checked for
and fail gracefully with a meaningful message (saying that the package X
should be installed).
Laurent
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
>
9 matches
Mail list logo
