Wait, you didn't ignore it! Okay, this should be the last message that goes
through on old dev. We'll see if I'm so cheerful in five minutes.
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Ryan Culpepper ry...@ccs.neu.edu writes:
We need volunteers for a final round of testing for Racket
v6.0. This round of testing will focus on the package system and
changes related to it.
We would like to test the release candidate on the following
configurations:
- Unix build from
Ryan == Ryan Culpepper ryanc-1vnkwvzi4qavc3sceru...@public.gmane.org
writes:
Ryan We need volunteers for a final round of testing for Racket v6.0.
Ryan This round of testing will focus on the package system and changes
Ryan related to it.
Ryan We would like to test the release
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:55:59PM -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
If you are interested in helping, please reply to this message to
the mailing list and include the configuration(s) you are willing
to test.
OK, of what seems to be remaining...
I can do the Windows 32-bit, if it is acceptable to
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:55:59PM -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
We would like to test the release candidate on the following
configurations:
If I find the time to help here, where would I get the official release
candidate? Sorry if this should be obvious.
David
_
At Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:45:07 -0500, David T. Pierson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:55:59PM -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
We would like to test the release candidate on the following
configurations:
If I find the time to help here, where would I get the official release
candidate?
We need volunteers for a final round of testing for Racket
v6.0. This round of testing will focus on the package system and
changes related to it.
We would like to test the release candidate on the following
configurations:
- Unix build from source, in-place install
- Unix build from
On 2014-02-14 15:55:59 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
If you are interested in helping, please reply to this message to
the mailing list and include the configuration(s) you are willing
to test.
I can test the following configurations:
- Unix build from source, in-place install
- Unix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01-12-12 18:45, Neil Toronto wrote:
Rather than a guarantee (or a probabilistic estimate) of actual
collection, could the garbage collector's opinion of what is or isn't
garbage be exposed somehow?
Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/02/2012 12:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think the high-level answer is that
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I agree that when something is collected is a pretty intentional
property but I think it is possible to say a little bit more since
there is a pretty stable core idea there (namely that if something
isn't
At Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:04:15 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I agree that when something is collected is a pretty intentional
property but I think it is possible to say a little bit more since
there is a
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:04:15 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I agree that when something is collected is a pretty intentional
property
Let me also say that I think it is important to give advice on how to
test so I think we need to say something.
Robby
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Mon, 3 Dec 2012
This guide material (as opposed to language specification and
guarantees) looks pretty good to me. I'll edit and add the suggestion
of N allocations.
At Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:39:09 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
Let me also say that I think it is important to give advice on how to
test so I think we
Thanks. Is the N suggestion a future-proofing kind of a thing, or is
there something today that could cause such a test to pass where a
single one might fail?
Robby
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
This guide material (as opposed to language specification
On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something
about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are how
things currently work and then make a test that will work when you
make those additional assumptions
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something
about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are how
things currently work
On 12/02/2012 12:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something
about details that aren't currently specified
I'm getting ready to push a change to math/array that fixes a memory
leak. I've devised a test that I think will determine whether an array's
procedure gets collected after the array is made strict, but I don't
know whether it works only by accident. Here it is:
(define: collected? : (Boxof
How about using a weak box instead?
Robby
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting ready to push a change to math/array that fixes a memory leak.
I've devised a test that I think will determine whether an array's procedure
gets collected after
Honestly, because I was too rushed to try them before I had to leave
this morning. :D However, now that I have the chance, I've found that
Typed Racket doesn't support them. I can't add support using
`required/typed', because `Weak-Box' would have to be a polymorphic type.
Also, they don't
This prints #f for me.
#lang racket
(define (make-box-thing v)
(make-weak-box (λ (_) v)))
(define bx (make-box-thing 4))
(collect-garbage)
(weak-box-value bx)
And I guess that non-closure procedures are held onto by the modules
they are inside. This program prints #f for me, and it seems to
Ah. It prints #f for me when I have debugging info turned on in
DrRacket; otherwise I get #procedure. Must be inlining keeping it
around or something.
The problem with either finalizers or weak boxes is that neither
provides enough guarantees. Finalizers are never guaranteed to be run. A
On 12/01/2012 07:05 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
Ah. It prints #f for me when I have debugging info turned on in
DrRacket; otherwise I get #procedure. Must be inlining keeping it
around or something.
The problem with either finalizers or weak boxes is that neither
provides enough guarantees.
I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something
about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are how
things currently work and then make a test that will work when you
make those additional assumptions (and then keep it running in drdr so
you can tell when
I haven't been able to replicate this crash on a NetBSD 6.0_BETA2 i386
install.
Does it crash consistently for you? Did you provide any arguments to
`configure'?
Thanks!
At Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:55:07 +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu writes:
Just a reminder that
Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu writes:
I haven't been able to replicate this crash on a NetBSD 6.0_BETA2 i386
install.
Does it crash consistently for you? Did you provide any arguments to
`configure'?
Sure.
--enable-pthread --prefix=/usr/pkg --build=i486--netbsdelf --mandir=/usr/pkg/man
Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu writes:
Just a reminder that testing for release v5.3 begins Monday.
Tests crash on NetBSD 6.0_BETA2 i386:
Section(basic)
Section(unicode)
Section(rx)
Section(reading)
Section(readtable)
Section(printing)
Section(macro)
Section(syntax)
Section(procs)
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
Just a reminder that testing for release v5.3 begins Monday.
Ok, understood! Unfortunately, Whalesong won't initially have support
for submodules.
I'm currently addressing type errors that I'm getting from the new
verson
Just a reminder that testing for release v5.3 begins Monday.
Ryan
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
One of the responses to the draft of the Racket style guide contains the
following paragraph:
There should be unified way to test collections. Let's say I fix
something in collect `foo', there should be an obvious way to run
`foo''s tests. Currently, the closest we have would be to look in
I think a convention is good. I also think that this kind of
organizational principle (where do tests go? How do you name the
main file in some package? etc) is completely appropriate for a
style guide somewhere, so maybe I'm missing something, tho.
Robby
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
One of the responses to the draft of the Racket style guide contains the
following paragraph:
There should be unified way to test collections. Let's say I fix
something in collect `foo', there should be an
I feel challenged to write this up. So I will put it on my wish list and assign
your name to it.
On Aug 4, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think a convention is good. I also think that this kind of
organizational principle (where do tests go? How do you name the
main file in
OK.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I feel challenged to write this up. So I will put it on my wish list and
assign your name to it.
On Aug 4, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think a convention is good. I also think that this kind
At Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:11:27 -0400,
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
One of the responses to the draft of the Racket style guide contains the
following paragraph:
There should be unified way to test collections. Let's say I fix
something in collect `foo', there should be an obvious way to
On Aug 4, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
The above suggestion does not rule out individual testing styles. It
only mentions a standardized entry point. What the test suite does
afterwards can still be left to the programmer.
I really really prefer placing my tests in a
6 hours ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
15 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
We've talked before about having a testing mode so that tests could
be written inline, but not run when the module is normally run. I've
attached a patch that adds a simple way of doing this.
racket/test gives you
-
I like the testing part, but am uneasy with the deploying part.
Unit testing is so commonplace, and sometimes you want to have unit
tests of private stuff within a module, without having to break up the
module to expose the private stuff for testing. So, in that very
common, almost universal
25 minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
Just one example: just like some people might have mode called
deploying or production, I might have particular modules that
have a run mode in which there are multiple implementations of the
same function, and at run time both the simple and the
I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests included,
as an exportable test suite:
-- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
-- they are next to the function they test
-- it is easy to run them from the repl after loading the file
-- ... and from some
About a minute ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests
included, as an exportable test suite:
-- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
-- they are next to the function they test
-- it is easy to run them from the repl
2011/6/28 Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu:
I have come to accept that all modules should come with their tests included,
as an exportable test suite:
-- you don't need to expose any 'private' identifiers
-- they are next to the function they test
-- it is easy to run them from the
Apologies. I didn't understand your original message then, and all I understand
now is that I misunderstood it.
But I will say that I already organize my files according to Eli's style. I
have considered writing tests right below a function, but in the end I decided
that this wasn't any good
20 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
I was worried about situations where you had some code that had
module toplevel code that starts up a long running process that
shouldn't be run in test mode, so I wanted to cordon off that. I
wasn't imagining anything as complicated as what Neil or Eli seem
Jay McCarthy wrote at 06/28/2011 10:52 AM:
My patch was supposed to address this by setting up a protocol for
code to be test only or not test (that's what I intended by
with-deploying.)
It was deploying in the name that I thought was problematic.
when-testing-mode and unless-testing-mode,
We've talked before about having a testing mode so that tests could be
written inline, but not run when the module is normally run. I've
attached a patch that adds a simple way of doing this.
racket/test gives you
- with-testing
- with-deploying
The first is a block of testing code. The second
15 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
We've talked before about having a testing mode so that tests could
be written inline, but not run when the module is normally run. I've
attached a patch that adds a simple way of doing this.
racket/test gives you
- with-testing
- with-deploying
Why add
In light of PR 11469 (http://bit.ly/hvvT90), I'd like to write test
cases to check that Redex sets 'disappeared-use in a way that makes
Check Syntax's renaming work properly.
I was hoping there would be some kind of Check Syntax mixin that I
could apply to an editor to get a class that lets me
Yeah sure. You can do that. The current CS test does that (but only
checks colors and arrows not renaming).
At the moment however the test suite is broken due to a race condition
somewhere.
Iny any case let's sit together soon and I'll show you the current
state and maybe we can improve it.
51 matches
Mail list logo
