At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:59:38 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > Does another system have a Racket-like in-place option (that works
> > better)?
>
> I haven't used it, but
That seems like a fair summary and since my preference is clearly the
minority one, I'm happy to stick with 'make as-is'. The new mode for
pulling updates will help, as well.
Sam
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 7:52 AM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:59:38 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
Ok, thanks. I´ll submit it in a few days.
Gustavo
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Leif Andersen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am working on porting the racket compiler to racket. But it still has a
> bit to go and I have not yet ported the optimizer. So go right ahead.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> ~Leif Anders
A student of mine just had a spurious automatic compilation error that occurred
when he
a) wrote a program in an unsaved buffer with a relative ‘require’. (automatic
compilation shows error)
b) saved it to a new location (no keystroke in buffer, so automatic compilation
still shows error)
c) rai
4 matches
Mail list logo
