Re: [racket-dev] the preferences file under Windows

2011-01-14 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:29:15 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: 30 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: Unfortunately (again), the lock file has to exist alongside the data file, and our existing preferences files are not accompanied by lock files. It's no good assuming that you don't need the lock

Re: [racket-dev] the preferences file under Windows

2011-01-14 Thread Eli Barzilay
20 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: The `racket/file' library now provides `preferences-lock-file-mode', which reports the style of locking being used. DrRacket, for example, may need to use that function --- instead of testing whether the current platform is Windows --- to determine whether

[racket-dev] Gr2 on debian system: vastly better than 5.0.2!

2011-01-14 Thread John Clements
It probably won't come as a surprise to hear that the newer gr2 flavor of DrRacket resolves all of the bizarre (and unfixed) font problems I had with older versions of DrRacket on bare-bones debian systems. Thanks! John smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [racket-dev] atomic file update by write rename... not!

2011-01-14 Thread Eli Barzilay
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote: At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:30:08 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: 15 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: Is there anything else in the main distribution that is uses `rename-file-or-directory' for atomic update? Is the handin-server's use kosher? There are three

Re: [racket-dev] atomic file update by write rename... not!

2011-01-14 Thread Robby Findler
So just use all of the wonderful syncronization stuff we have in Racket for that! The file system as syncronization operation is sooo low level (ahm, inconvenient ;) Robby On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote: Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote: At Thu, 13 Jan

[racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Casey Klein
The new, nicely formatted blame messages helped me discover that every single Redex contract has the wrong negative party. (Admittedly, the commonly used Redex provides are macros.) There are two problems. I believe the first is a bug. The following program (module dependencies DAG:

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Robby Findler
FWIW, Casey and I talked about this in my office and I've long advocated that (require f.rkt) ;; provide/contract's f with some contract (provide f) or (require f.rkt) ;; provide/contract's f with some contract (provide (all-from-out f.rkt)) should be the equivalent of: (require

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Ryan Culpepper
The first problem is a variant of PR 11084, I think. Ryan On 01/14/2011 12:40 PM, Casey Klein wrote: The new, nicely formatted blame messages helped me discover that every single Redex contract has the wrong negative party. (Admittedly, the commonly used Redex provides are macros.) There are

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Stevie Strickland
On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote: as far as the contract library is concerned, but now I'm starting to think that that is not convenient enough. Instead, we should really default to 'provide f with the same contract it had before, as if the programmer had copied and pasted the

Re: [racket-dev] [racket] response/xexpr missing?

2011-01-14 Thread Eli Barzilay
[Moving to dev] 15 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote: It was added during the time between the last release and the current release (which will come out imminently.) And the moral is to wait with changes to the front page examples until after the release, I think. (If more such things add up,

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Robby Findler
No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace thru the module dag, you'll see it. Robby On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote: as far as the contract library is concerned, but now

Re: [racket-dev] [racket] response/xexpr missing?

2011-01-14 Thread Robby Findler
I've wanted to change the front page to change the 2htdp/image example to use 'freeze' (making the program go from exponential to linear in 'n') too, but I've held off until it was in an actually released release. Lets do that instead of introducing any extra complexity. Robby On Fri, Jan 14,

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Robby Findler
The first. I think you've got it. Robby On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler wrote: No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace thru the module dag, you'll see it. Just to check,

Re: [racket-dev] [racket] response/xexpr missing?

2011-01-14 Thread Eli Barzilay
7 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: I've wanted to change the front page to change the 2htdp/image example to use 'freeze' (making the program go from exponential to linear in 'n') too, but I've held off until it was in an actually released release. It's still minor -- so feel free to send me

Re: [racket-dev] [racket] response/xexpr missing?

2011-01-14 Thread Robby Findler
Thanks. #lang racket ; A picture (require 2htdp/image) (let sierpinski ([n 8]) (if (zero? n) (triangle 2 'solid 'red) (let ([t (sierpinski (- n 1))]) (freeze (above t (beside t t)) This is a revision. I don't nkow if it fits, tho. The call to freeze can be anywhere

Re: [racket-dev] [racket] response/xexpr missing?

2011-01-14 Thread Eli Barzilay
Three minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: Thanks. #lang racket ; A picture (require 2htdp/image) (let sierpinski ([n 8]) (if (zero? n) (triangle 2 'solid 'red) (let ([t (sierpinski (- n 1))]) (freeze (above t (beside t t)) This is a revision. I don't nkow if

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Casey Klein
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler wrote: No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace thru the module dag, you'll see it. Just to check, are you talking about the second series of

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Matthias Felleisen
Two complaints in one day about the wording of these clauses. Let's do something about the English. I have another one, unrelated: I don't like the 'self-blame'. I have encountered this now a couple of times, and I think we should use the Eiffel terminology of promised required

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Stevie Strickland
On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Casey Klein wrote: FWIW, I had no idea what the message's via clause meant. Truthfully, I was guessing that via = user blame. If I didn't know the internals, I wouldn't have known what that meant either. I think it needs to be rewritten, but I haven't thought

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Stevie Strickland
On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: Two complaints in one day about the wording of these clauses. Let's do something about the English. Agreed. I have another one, unrelated: I don't like the 'self-blame'. I have encountered this now a couple of times, and I think we

Re: [racket-dev] Blame and re-provided bindings

2011-01-14 Thread Carl Eastlund
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote: On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Casey Klein clkl...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote: On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Casey Klein wrote: