Perfectly good summary, my good man.
Anyway, I've decided to regard `log' (with huge rationals) and `sqrt'
(with perfect squares) as anomalies, because I'm finding more examples
that don't work. Here's one:
(real-double-flonum (/ #e1e400 #e1e200))
1e+200
(/ #e1e400 1e200)
+inf.0
So it
At Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:37:24 -0600, Neil Toronto wrote:
Anyway, I've decided to regard `log' (with huge rationals) and `sqrt'
(with perfect squares) as anomalies, because I'm finding more examples
that don't work. [...]
It's actually a bit of a relief that I don't have to worry about this.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
Thoughts so far:
I think you need a new communication channel to get information from
the expansion of an enclosing module to the expansion of its submodule.
Expansion-time state is the right kind of channel, but I think
At Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:05:52 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
However, I don't (yet) think it's the right solution. In particular,
I feel like this moves away from the really great feature of
submodules, which is that they behave basically exactly like regular
modules. From what I can tell,
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:05:52 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
However, I don't (yet) think it's the right solution. In particular,
I feel like this moves away from the really great feature of
submodules, which is that
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Is it possible there is another channel that TR could use to
communicate these types? That is, could it not expand
(: f Integer)
(define f 5)
into something that bound 'f' to a macro that knows its type? I
At Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:14:10 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:05:52 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
However, I don't (yet) think it's the right solution. In particular,
I feel like this moves
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
I think the general rule, if you could call it a rule, has been try
harder when it seems useful for something.
A good one to live by. :)
Robby
_
Racket Developers list:
1. The need for a no-value initial value shows up only when we have a function
with two (or more) such parameters. Otherwise case-lambda does fine.
2. Eli's initial proposal triggered the same response in me as Robby's except
that our experience with 'undefined' immediately told me I want to
9 matches
Mail list logo
