Re: [racket-dev] Pre-Release Checklist for v6.1

2014-07-20 Thread Jon Rafkind 

On 07/17/2014 05:03 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>
> * Jon Rafkind 
>   Release tests for (one of the) linux releases:
>   - Test that the `racket' and `racket-textual' source releases
> compile fine (note that they're still called `plt' and `mz' at
> this stage).
>   - Test that the binary installers for both work, try each one in
> both normal and unix-style installation modes. (just ubuntu)
>   [Note: get the release candidates from the URL in this email. Use
>the 'static table' link to see a list of all tar files available]

Done, but I saw an error once during a build of 
racket-minimal-6.0.900.900-src.tgz during 'make install'. I accidentally 
destroyed the terminal and wasn't able to reproduce the error after two 
additional tries, so I'm not sure what went wrong but it was something like

raco: building scribblings/framework.rkt
  sqlite3: unable to read from database

I'll try once or twice more to see if it happens again.
_
  Racket Developers list:
  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

Re: [racket-dev] Pre-Release Checklist for v6.1

2014-07-20 Thread Michael Sperber 

Ryan Culpepper  writes:

> * Mike Sperber 
>   - DMdA Tests
>   - Stepper Tests
>   - Signature Tests

Done.

-- 
Regards,
Mike
_
  Racket Developers list:
  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

Re: [racket-dev] flatten-begin

2014-07-20 Thread Robby Findler 
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Matthew Flatt  wrote:
> At Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:52:26 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
>> Unless someone knows why it is a bad idea, how about adding a #:all?
>> argument that flattens all the way down?
>>
>> I don't see many uses of flatten-begin in our tree, but the one in
>> compatibility/package sure looks like it could use the #:all?
>> argument.
>
> I don't think so. Eagerly flattening would break examples like
>
>(begin
> (define begin +)
> (begin 1 2)))
>

Oh, I see I missed the call to local-expand in the loop, sorry.

But what is this supposed to do at the REPL? DrRacket and Racket at
least agree, but it isn't what I would have predicted:

> (begin
(define begin +)
(begin 1 2))
. begin: function application is not allowed;
 no #%app syntax transformer is bound in: (begin 1 2)

Are they doing the right thing?

(Inside a module we get the expected 3.)

Robby
_
  Racket Developers list:
  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev