On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> This is the right patch, but I think we also need Eli to update the
> DNS setup, in addition to me updating the server (which I am doing
> now).
Hurrah! I can see pkg.racket-lang.org now.
_
Racket Developers list:
That's fixed now. If anyone has any ideas for a more useful contents
to put on that web page, I'll be happy to revise it.
On Wednesday, John Clements wrote:
> This looks like an oversight. I was looking for the planet2 package
> web page, and discovered that going to
>
> anybogusname.racket-lan
;^)
2013/1/26, Robby Findler :
> This is a great one! It demonstrates why you should never believe eq? when
> it returns #f. I had been using an eq? test to see if some language was in
> a "allowed to create executables" list. But the language was passing thru
> TR, which means it acquired a con
FWIW, I think we've known about this issue for a long time and I've spent
many hour mulling over eq? and what is the right way to think about it.
In this case, I violated my own rule ("if eq? returns #f, you learned
nothing -- the same thing you'd learn as if you didn't call eq?").
Robby
On Sat
Sam, this seems to be a subtle change in semantics concerning interoperability
that we understood but didn't think important. For the sake of making it all
"real", I think you should collect such examples. [I guess Robby and I
understood this in the context of contracts and it could all have ha
This is a great one! It demonstrates why you should never believe eq? when
it returns #f. I had been using an eq? test to see if some language was in
a "allowed to create executables" list. But the language was passing thru
TR, which means it acquired a contract, which means it wasn't eq? anymore.
Omitted dev the first time. Sorry for the duplicate.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Pierpaolo Bernardi
Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Bug in creating executables from DrRacket
To: Robby Findler
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
[[ I don't really understand the answer. I mean
I understand the technicality but not the spirit. ]]
The 'f' comes from the macro input in both cases.
Hence the rename-out could be seen as the actual
name required.
On Jan 26, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 26 Jan 201
Thanks for the clarification.
On Jan 26, 2013 6:55 AM, "Matthew Flatt" wrote:
> At Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:12:04 -0500, Stephen Chang wrote:
> > Is this a supported use of submodules?
> >
> >
> > #lang racket
> >
> > (define-syntax (def-wrapped stx)
> > (syntax-case stx ()
> > [(_ (f arg ...)
At Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:12:04 -0500, Stephen Chang wrote:
> Is this a supported use of submodules?
>
>
> #lang racket
>
> (define-syntax (def-wrapped stx)
> (syntax-case stx ()
> [(_ (f arg ...) body ...)
> #'(begin
> (module tmp-module-name racket
>(define (f-tmp
10 matches
Mail list logo
