No not all points of pr 9692 have been addressed, but after using the search
replace API for some time I got used to it and now I am happy with it as
it is.
I use check syntax for looking up and replacing complete identifiers.
Thanks, Jos
-Original Message-
From:
Okay, thanks. I've closed the PR.
Robby
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Jos Koot jos.k...@telefonica.net wrote:
No not all points of pr 9692 have been addressed, but after using the search
replace API for some time I got used to it and now I am happy with it as
it is.
I use check syntax
Thanks to you and all other members of PLT.
Jos
-Original Message-
From: robby.find...@gmail.com
[mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler
Sent: 17 February 2011 14:54
To: Jos Koot
Cc: PLT Developers
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] irrelevant open problem reports
Running a particular file has been crushingly slow for me, and I finally traced
it down (apparently) to the addition of an except-in wrapper around a planet
require. Adding the wrapper changes a consistently sub-1-second compile-and
run into a big thrashing memory-fest. Is there some kind of
I don't know precisely what is going on here, but I know from looking
at expanded code that straightforward module requires become
straightforward #%requires, while modifications like renaming wind up
expanding out each individual binding as a separate #%require. So it
seems plausible that
On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
I don't know precisely what is going on here, but I know from looking
at expanded code that straightforward module requires become
straightforward #%requires, while modifications like renaming wind up
expanding out each individual binding as
Have you tried this with non-planet files? I'm curious whether the
planet aspect is really a factor here, or just except-in.
Carl Eastlund
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
I don't know precisely
On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
Have you tried this with non-planet files? I'm curious whether the
planet aspect is really a factor here, or just except-in.
Lightly; this arose because both rackunit and sxml provide 'foldts' (which,
honestly, neither one should probably
On 02/15/2011 07:28 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
And finaly, there's the litmus test for existing code:
* Ryan: is something like this enough to implement the GUI layer?
Not well, I think. The Test-Result type in Noel's racktest code is too
simple and inflexible. It represents the minimal essence
9 matches
Mail list logo
