Why not make it a button? "A problem appears! [Click here] to
send details of this problem to the package developers."
6 hours ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> John Clements wrote at 09/09/2011 04:00 PM:
> > On Sep 9, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not familiar with CPANTS, but
I also wonder if we couldn't combine both the R and the lambda in
interesting ways.
The left part and the stem of a capital R sort of looks like a
lambda, if you squint right. Could we exploit this property
somehow?
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6555/scriptr.jpg
Going from the other directio
I'm no graphics designer but I've been playing with Eli's logo a
bit. I went gradient-happy; sorry.
Here it is with a silvery sheen:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/219506/racket-logo/whitesilver-subtle.png
Less subtle, darker silver:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/219506/racket-logo/silver.png
I've been exper
)))
21 hours ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
> :-((( -- Matthias, deeply depressed
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 2:25 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Okay. I am adding
> >>
> >> Don't pollute your code with space
For what it's worth, github-flavored markdown (used in issues and
pull requests) does let you embed inline images and
syntax-highlighted source code, written like this:
scheme
(lambda (foo)
;; scheme source here
...)
You can see an example in t
Hey wow, maybe I might understand this. Or maybe I might be
totally wrong. Here's a guess:
In the first version, the (splicing-syntax-parameterize) takes
effect *when f is defined*; then, after the definition, the
parameter is reset to #f (and presumably it's lexical binding)
because it's a parame
This seems to work for me, printing 84, just like you expect:
;
(define-syntax (def stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ (name args ...) body ...)
(with-syntax ([function-stx stx])
(syntax/loc stx
(define (name args ...
(TL;DR: I'd suggest two functions: one (string-words str)
function that does Eli's way, and one (string-split str sep) that
does it Laurent's way).
50 minutes ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> That doesn't seem right -- with this you get
>
> -> (string-split " st ring")
> '("" "st" "" "ring")
>
>
That's an interesting thought.
Racket currently uses GNU Lightning as its JIT, correct? What if
it used LLVM instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Description
Of course this is much more work than just getting racket to
build with Clang, but I wonder what the implications of a
successful por
9 matches
Mail list logo
