I find the example too abstract to understand why the computation
happens at the wrong phase when you adjust the code with
`begin-for-syntax'. Can you explain a little more, maybe with a more
concrete example?
Just in case, here's the code that I think you have in mind for wrong
phase:
#lang
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
I find the example too abstract to understand why the computation
happens at the wrong phase when you adjust the code with
`begin-for-syntax'. Can you explain a little more, maybe with a more
concrete example?
Just in
At Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:13:44 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
I had not realized that I could sensibly wrap a module in a
`begin-for-syntax`. What is the semantic difference between that and
a plain submodule (other than my example working)?
For `(module* _name #f )', `begin-for-syntax'
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/05/2012 05:54 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Jul 5, 2012 8:50 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com
mailto:neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
(define-predicate boxof-integer? (Boxof Integer))
This is the
On 07/06/2012 09:11 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
Anticipating a bug fix, I've started converting my recent TR code so that it
doesn't define predicates for mutable container types. Instead of using
`define-predicate',
The documentation for generate-temporaries[1] ends with, The
generated identifiers are built with interned symbols (not gensyms),
so the limitations described with current-compile do not apply.
However, I cannot find any limitations described in the documentation
for current-compile[2]. If I
Has anyone noticed that the Redex website appears to be down? When I go to
http://redex.racket-lang.org/ , all I get is an index page listing a bunch
of Racket/Scheme source files.
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:59:34 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
As I try to make an example illustrating problems, I see that Racket is
more resistant to problems created by `gensym' than I expected.
Ah --- one more level of
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Carl Eastlund c...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:59:34 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
As I try to make an example illustrating problems, I see that Racket is
more resistant to
I just realized that Racket already suffers from the problem that polymorphic
contracts introduce.
As Stephen is working out right now, Racketeers want to introduce laziness to
speed up programs on occasion. We have been told for decades that delay and
force are our friends. In a sense, this
50 minutes ago, Jonathan Schuster wrote:
Has anyone noticed that the Redex website appears to be down? When I
go to http://redex.racket-lang.org/ , all I get is an index page
listing a bunch of Racket/Scheme source files.
Yeah, that was a server misconfiguration -- thanks for reporting it.
What do you do if you have a function that accepts either promises or
lists? Then, you might want total predicates.
Robby
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I just realized that Racket already suffers from the problem that polymorphic
contracts
I can't think of such a primitive other than force, for which it is okay. Can
you be concrete?
On Jul 6, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
What do you do if you have a function that accepts either promises or
lists? Then, you might want total predicates.
Robby
On Fri, Jul 6,
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I can't think of such a primitive other than force, for which it is okay. Can
you be concrete?
Here's a type definition;
(define-type LTree
(U (Promise Integer) (Cons LTree LTree)))
This is just a tree of
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I don't care about typed definitions.
Sam didn't have a typed definition, just a type definition, note
the significant d suffix.
And yes, in an untyped world, you'd write
(define (sum lt)
(cond
[(promise?
Lets say I have a function that gets a list of promises or lists. It
is going to print out the state of some ongoing computation (that is
producing these lists). It will print the list, if there's a list, and
it will print pending if it is a promise; it doesn't want to force
it, since it is just a
16 matches
Mail list logo
