At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:29:15 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote:
30 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Unfortunately (again), the lock file has to exist alongside the data
file, and our existing preferences files are not accompanied by lock
files. It's no good assuming that you don't need the lock
20 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
The `racket/file' library now provides `preferences-lock-file-mode',
which reports the style of locking being used. DrRacket, for
example, may need to use that function --- instead of testing
whether the current platform is Windows --- to determine whether
It probably won't come as a surprise to hear that the newer gr2 flavor of
DrRacket resolves all of the bizarre (and unfixed) font problems I had with
older versions of DrRacket on bare-bones debian systems.
Thanks!
John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:30:08 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote:
15 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Is there anything else in the main distribution that is uses
`rename-file-or-directory' for atomic update?
Is the handin-server's use kosher? There are three
So just use all of the wonderful syncronization stuff we have in
Racket for that! The file system as syncronization operation is sooo
low level (ahm, inconvenient ;)
Robby
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Thu, 13 Jan
The new, nicely formatted blame messages helped me discover that every
single Redex contract has the wrong negative party. (Admittedly, the
commonly used Redex provides are macros.) There are two problems.
I believe the first is a bug. The following program (module
dependencies DAG:
FWIW, Casey and I talked about this in my office and I've long advocated that
(require f.rkt) ;; provide/contract's f with some contract
(provide f)
or
(require f.rkt) ;; provide/contract's f with some contract
(provide (all-from-out f.rkt))
should be the equivalent of:
(require
The first problem is a variant of PR 11084, I think.
Ryan
On 01/14/2011 12:40 PM, Casey Klein wrote:
The new, nicely formatted blame messages helped me discover that every
single Redex contract has the wrong negative party. (Admittedly, the
commonly used Redex provides are macros.) There are
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 the
[Moving to dev]
15 minutes ago, Jay McCarthy wrote:
It was added during the time between the last release and the
current release (which will come out imminently.)
And the moral is to wait with changes to the front page examples until
after the release, I think.
(If more such things add up,
No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace
thru the module dag, you'll see it.
Robby
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
as far as the contract library is concerned, but now
The first. I think you've got it.
Robby
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
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,
7 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
I've wanted to change the front page to change the 2htdp/image
example to use 'freeze' (making the program go from exponential to
linear in 'n') too, but I've held off until it was in an actually
released release.
It's still minor -- so feel free to send me
Thanks.
#lang racket ; A picture
(require 2htdp/image)
(let sierpinski ([n 8])
(if (zero? n)
(triangle 2 'solid 'red)
(let ([t (sierpinski (- n 1))])
(freeze (above t (beside t t))
This is a revision. I don't nkow if it fits, tho. The call to freeze
can be anywhere
Three minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
Thanks.
#lang racket ; A picture
(require 2htdp/image)
(let sierpinski ([n 8])
(if (zero? n)
(triangle 2 'solid 'red)
(let ([t (sierpinski (- n 1))])
(freeze (above t (beside t t))
This is a revision. I don't nkow if
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stevie Strickland sstri...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
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
Two complaints in one day about the wording of these clauses. Let's do
something about the English.
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 should use the Eiffel
terminology of
promised
required
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 thought
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
