On Jul 17, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> * Stevie Strickland
> - Unit Contract Tests
> - Contract Region Tests
> - Class Contract Tests
Done.
Stevie
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
- What: 8th Workshop on Dynamic Languages and Applications.
- Where: Co-located with PLDI'14, Edinburgh, UK
- When: June 12th,
Sponsored by ACM SIGPLAN
Submission deadline: March 15th
More info on the website: http://www.lifl.fr/dyla14/
Dyla is a place where developers and researchers can discu
49.5% collects/racket/contract/private/
> 8.4% collects/racket/private/
> 7.3% collects/scribblings/reference/
> 34.5% collects/tests/racket/
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> eb12d76 Stevie Strickland 2013-04-13 17:18
> :
> | Add two spaces before contract error message fiel
Sorry about the delay. My original planned fix didn't pan out, but now I've
got a fix in place in the repo (push #26457).
Thanks,
Stevie
On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2013-03-09 10:57:28 -0500, sstri...@racket-lang.org wrote:
>> 7d1ad25 Stevie Str
On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:32 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 11:53 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:30 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/25/2012 10:25 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
>>>> As for the negativ
On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:30 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 10:25 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
>> [Hit Reply instead of Reply All, so fixing that here.]
>>
>> On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/25/2012 09:27 PM, Stevie St
[Hit Reply instead of Reply All, so fixing that here.]
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 09:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
>
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:27 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
> Much like interface contracts mediate between the creator of a class (that
> implements the interface) and the client of that class (that instantiates
> objects from that interface),
Of course I meant the client that instantiate
On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 09:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
>> On 2012-06-25 20:17:33 -0600, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>>> IIUC from your later message, you've implemented the generics
>>> analogue of object/c (per-instance contract), whereas
>>> prop:dict/contr
You're correct about it being optional, so go ahead and add it.
Thanks,
Stevie
On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:48 PM, John Clements wrote:
> It looks to me like the "free-var-list" is optional in uses of with-contract
> and define/contract. The documentation, though, suggests that this is not the
> case
On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> * Stevie Strickland
> - Unit Contract Tests
> - Contract Region Tests
The commit I just pushed (d76b0dac, in push #24573) should be included. It'll
fix the only failing test case (and add a couple others that also pass)
Just wanted to throw in my two cents that I was having the same problem as
John, and his fix works for me also. I'd misdiagnosed it on my machines, tried
a couple of things, and then just ended up disabling mac64 until now. Thanks,
John!
Stevie
On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:25 PM, John Clements wrot
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> I don't know of people who are, but I think that in situations like
> these we should err on the side of not-breaking-code.
>
> In this case, I would document this function as "roughly like the
> @racketmodname[slatex] library function X, provide
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM, wrote:
>> f5de8bd Stevie Strickland 2011-04-26 12:57
>> :
>> | Move scmxlated source for slatex into private.
>> |
>> | Anyone using the sole export from slatex.rkt should r
On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Jon Rafkind wrote:
> Stevie:
> a04b8d989936e64e29d2ae123da39159c2cdf2e6
>Change instanceof/c to allow more contracts.
>
>Now instanceof/c no longer checks explicitly for a class/c contract, so
>or/c or and/c of class/c contracts succeed.
> 92775c5e4ee55986da
On Jan 31, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> * Stevie Strickland
> - Unit Contract Tests
> - Contract Region Tests
Done.
Stevie
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Are you saying that it is somehow less bad if the only indeterminate
> aspect of the use of the variable is whether or not the 'via' shows
> up?
There the information is taken from the context of the _use_ of the variable,
which is calculated wh
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> So, let me ask this: Stevie, do you think that the current world for
> re-provided bindings is the right design decision (ie act as if they
> were all written like (provide/contract [f any/c])), or do you think
> this change I'm suggesting (act as
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Stevie Strickland
> wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>> 2. I am not strictly opposed to your suggestion because I see value in your
>>> reasoning.
On Jan 15, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 2. I am not strictly opposed to your suggestion because I see value in your
> reasoning. If we go with re-providing the identifier with its contract, I
> would like to see the blame assignment shifted to the re-exporting module.
> This doe
On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> But I don't think we should think of it as 'changing the positive
> blame information' -- I agree anything phrased like that sounds wrong.
But I think you _do_ want this in some cases, where you're reproviding
internally contracted things to an
On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> I think that we are just throwing up stumbling blocks. It is really a
>> design choice (does a reprovide "carry over" the contract or does it
>> put a new
On Jan 15, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> I think that we are just throwing up stumbling blocks. It is really a
> design choice (does a reprovide "carry over" the contract or does it
> put a new one on there?) and I seriously doubt there are any places
> where someone does a reprovide in
On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Two complaints in one day about the wording of these clauses. Let's do
> something about the English.
Agreed.
> I have another one, unrelated: I don't like the 'self-blame'. I have
> encountered this now a couple of times, and I think we
On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Casey Klein wrote:
> FWIW, I had no idea what the message's "via" clause meant.
Truthfully, I was guessing that "via" => "user blame". If I didn't know the
internals, I wouldn't have known what that meant either. I think it needs to
be rewritten, but I haven't thou
On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace
> thru the module dag, you'll see it.
Just to check, are you talking about the second series of modules, or the
first? The problem in the first is likely a variation of PR11
On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> as far as the contract library is concerned, but now I'm starting to
> think that that is not convenient enough. Instead, we should really
> default to 'provide f with the same contract it had before, as if the
> programmer had copied and pasted t
of it, that might make things ok.
>>
>> Robby
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>>> 92775c5 Stevie Strickland 2011-01-07 18:22
>>>> :
>>>> | Add instanceof.
>>>> |
>>>> | The instanceof con
On Jan 7, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote:
>>
>> So I did this ("git" means "git.racket-lang.org" in my ssh setup as
>> I did things that way before Eli's recommendation changed)
>>
>> git clone git:robby/plt
>> git remote add plt git:plt
>
> It might be
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> Then, on the laptop, I did a git pull, and I ended up with the commits
>> back in the original order and a merge commit afterwards but I would
>> rather just have
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Then, on the laptop, I did a git pull, and I ended up with the commits
> back in the original order and a merge commit afterwards but I would
> rather just have my state be like the server's was.
Then don't do git pull. That not only updates you
My answers are:
1. There isn't, but I've been planning to do this as soon as I revisit
define-struct/contract in the new chaperone/impersonator world.
2. It's doable, but hasn't been done yet. I'll try and keep this in mind when
I revisit the things listed in 1. If I were to do it, I'd imagin
On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Both this and Sam's idea seem like good ways to improve the error
> message to me. Not sure if Casey or Sam (or Christos?) wants to try to
> their hand at the actual formatting or not. I will, if not.
A couple of things to note for anyone who at
On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> If someone besides me wants to take a stab at formulating a less painful
> message, the code is in collects/racket/contract/private/blame.rkt and,
> thanks to Stevie's refactoring, very easy to work with.
While I'd love to take the credit on th
On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Stevie Strickland
> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>> But this seems to perhaps be developing into something more
>>> interesting. Maybe there
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> But this seems to perhaps be developing into something more
> interesting. Maybe there is something more general than contracts and
> we should have a contracts+X system that supports that, somehow.
Every time I discuss contracts with a visiting
On Oct 28, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Casey Klein wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>>
>> More immediately, it's time for you to try out the "gr2" branch for
>> everyday work.
>
> In case there's anyone else who wants to try but (somehow) knows even
> less about git than I do
note of them.
> Stevie Strickland
> commit ec0711bf4996dde06ecddbc8fcb95f44987a6915
>Add chaperone contract-related properties.
>
> * Flat contracts are chaperone contracts, and chaperone contracts
>are (proxy) contracts.
> * Check in chaperone contracts that a
On Oct 24, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> What would happen if I had a contract like this:
>
> (case-> (-> integer? integer?) (-> boolean? boolean?))
One of two things:
a) You'd get an error for having overlapping arities in your contracts. This is
the most likely to be implemented,
On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Doug Williams wrote:
> On the case-> problem, it seems it no longer supports anything but ->. Is
> there something I am missing there?
This is a current limitation for case-> as provided by racket/contract. When I
tackle the conversion of case-> to proxies/chaperon
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> * Stevie Strickland
> - Unit Contract Tests
> - Contract Region Tests
Done.
Stevie
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
41 matches
Mail list logo
