On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> wrote:
>> I've certainly wanted this in the past. Ryan came up with some tricks that
>> made it easier, but I think a separate REPL that basically ran
>> (begin-for-syntax (print e)) w
An hour and a half ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> > Well, at this point you're talking about an optimization that
> > happens to be possible because of the on-line check syntax. But I
> > still think that there is too many differences betwee
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> I've certainly wanted this in the past. Ryan came up with some tricks that
> made it easier, but I think a separate REPL that basically ran
> (begin-for-syntax (print e)) would be a very nice addition.
>
> I'm also with Eli in thinking
I've certainly wanted this in the past. Ryan came up with some tricks that
made it easier, but I think a separate REPL that basically ran
(begin-for-syntax (print e)) would be a very nice addition.
I'm also with Eli in thinking that this should be separate from online check
syntax, unless we make
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> I also believe that we don't support these programs well as it is.
>
> I didn't program with closures until I experienced them in Scheme 84 in 1984.
> Perhaps people haven't progra
On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> I also believe that we don't support these programs well as it is.
I didn't program with closures until I experienced them in Scheme 84 in 1984.
Perhaps people haven't programmed in syntax REPLs because there aren't any.
But then again, perha
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 7 hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> >
>> > But this is very different from what the online check syntax is
>> > doing, and the current problem of letting the output go to the
>> > conso
7 hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> > But this is very different from what the online check syntax is
> > doing, and the current problem of letting the output go to the
> > console still needs to be solved. (And IMO, it should be
> > disc
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> An hour and a half ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I imagine it would work as by having an alternative to "run"
An hour and a half ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> >>
> >> I imagine it would work as by having an alternative to "run" that
> >> would just put you somehow into level 1.
> >
> > Th
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> That sounds cool to me. Now that I think about it, I think we used to
>> have something like this (it was a mixin tied to a specific language,
>> not something that worked for all
On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> That sounds cool to me. Now that I think about it, I think we used to
> have something like this (it was a mixin tied to a specific language,
> not something that worked for all #lang languages) but it was back
> before we had the macro system t
That sounds cool to me. Now that I think about it, I think we used to
have something like this (it was a mixin tied to a specific language,
not something that worked for all #lang languages) but it was back
before we had the macro system to support it, I think.
I imagine it would work as by having
A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> The first step would be a compile-time IO console.
>
> The second step would be a compile-time interaction mode.
> This would fit right in with Ryan's past work. It would mean
> compile the Def Window (as in CS) and make for-syntax values
> avail
The first step would be a compile-time IO console.
The second step would be a compile-time interaction mode.
This would fit right in with Ryan's past work. It would mean
compile the Def Window (as in CS) and make for-syntax values
available at the repl for experimentation. Then again, I might
With a REPL? That's a lot more than I had been thinking about. I'm not
sure how to do it, either.
Robby
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> May I propose a compile-time interaction window in drracket? -- Matthias
>
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Robby Findler wrote
May I propose a compile-time interaction window in drracket? -- Matthias
On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Well, when you do IO at compile time there isn't really a good place
> to put it (at least not at the moment) so instead of making a good
> place to put it, I just let i
Well, when you do IO at compile time there isn't really a good place
to put it (at least not at the moment) so instead of making a good
place to put it, I just let it go to drracket's stdout. Probably
reasonable to consider this a bug.
Robby
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wr
Yeap, I have live CS running all the time. Interesting effect.
On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Probably when you were running check syntax? (Or maybe when it was
> being run for you?)
>
> Robby
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>>
>> I am
Probably when you were running check syntax? (Or maybe when it was
being run for you?)
Robby
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> I am running the silly program below (no meaning), and on occasion I see the
> output of the *** line in the console from where I launched
I am running the silly program below (no meaning), and on occasion I see the
output of the *** line in the console from where I launched drracket. 5.2.0.1
from 10/16
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
(define-for-syntax (postfix stx word stem)
(datum->syntax stx (string->sym
21 matches
Mail list logo
