> Understood, too. So, do you want WeScheme/Racket compatibility or
> WeScheme/DrRacket compatibility?
In some sense, neither. We'd like to understand what is actually
happening, so we can make an intelligent decision accordingly.
Shriram
_
For l
On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> Understood. However, I think Danny's only concern w/ this code (which
> I wrote, so don't blame him) is as a test case for WeScheme/Racket
> compatibility in the presence of continuations.
Understood, too. So, do you want WeScheme/Rac
Understood. However, I think Danny's only concern w/ this code (which
I wrote, so don't blame him) is as a test case for WeScheme/Racket
compatibility in the presence of continuations.
Shriram
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list
On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> I'm failing to see anything other than cosmetic changes (ones that I
> heartily approve of) in your version of the code.
That's all I was suggesting. I think style matters and I decided that it was
worth pointing those out.
I simp
I'm failing to see anything other than cosmetic changes (ones that I
heartily approve of) in your version of the code. Did I miss a
semantic diff?
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> ;
>> (g1)
> #
> #
> ;
>
> where the print-values display of the continuation function appears to
> be printing twice. I guess I'm trying to understand what DrScheme is
> doing, well enough that I can
I came across some oddity under DrRacket involving continuations. If
I have the following in my definitions window:
;
#lang racket
(define (make-gen gen)
(let ([cont (box #f)])
(lambda ()
(call/cc (lambda (caller)
7 matches
Mail list logo
