Re: [racket-dev] Is anybody else getting this error?

2012-02-21 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
I saw an error like this a few days ago, but it was in a large project. This is the minimal example to reproduce the error. I guest that the problem is that a .zo exist for an older version of a file that now doesn't compile. The error disappears if I delete all the .zo files. I am using the

[racket-dev] Style guide: keywords and character conventions

2013-07-16 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
Hi! I was reading the draft of the style guide in the file [plt]/pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/style/textual.scrbl (link: http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/blob/b2ebb0a28bf8136e75cd98316c22fe54c30eacb2:/pkgs/racket-pkgs/racket-doc/scribblings/style/textual.scrbl ) In the lines 388 - 348,

Re: [racket-dev] Recompiling on wrong version for compiled code

2013-09-28 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
I submitted a similar question a few months ago. http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2013-January/056038.html I was using a redefined current-load/use-compiled to delete the old files, I'm not sure that the code handles all the cases properly, and that it doesn't delete any source file.

[racket-dev] Missing movable primitives in optimizer

2014-01-05 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
Hi! The file [plt] / racket / src / racket / src / optimize.c has a list of movable primitives in lines 955-961. I think that scheme_mcons_proc is missing. I read the definition and it’s very similar to scheme_mcons_proc, so I guess that it should be included in the list. Another possible

[racket-dev] Strange definition of dict-count in docs and tests

2014-01-17 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
Hi! The documentation about gen:dict http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/dicts.html#%28def._%28%28lib._racket%2Fdict..rkt%29._gen~3adict%29%29 says that dict-count accepts one argument. But then it is defined with a #:default argument: (define (dict-count dict #:default [x #f]) (or x

Re: [racket-dev] 5.92 release

2014-01-25 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
If I understand correctly, 5.92 was going to be a “hidden” release. But I just opened DrRacket 5.3.6 and got this message: “ Racket v5.92 is now available at http://download.racket-lang.org/ ” Gustavo On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote: Dear all:

Re: [racket-dev] Catching the undefined value

2014-04-19 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
I found another problem with the optimizer and the new undefined behavior. (letrec ([x (if #t 8 x)]) x) ;==8 I also consider this correct in a strange sense :). Gustavo Welcome to Racket v6.0.1.4. (letrec ([x x]) x) x: undefined; cannot use before initialization context...: C:\Program

Re: [racket-dev] Catching the undefined value

2014-04-19 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote: These seem correct to me. What were you expecting (and why?). Robby On Saturday, April 19, 2014, Gustavo Massaccesi gust...@oma.org.ar wrote: I found another problem with the optimizer and the new undefined behavior. (letrec ([x (if #t 8 x)]) x

[racket-dev] Use unsafe in reverse.rkt ?

2014-05-01 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
I was reading the alternative implementation of reverse in http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/blob/HEAD:/racket/collects/racket/private/reverse.rkt and I thought that the “car” and “cdr” could be replaced by the “unsafe” versions. I tried a few changes: * Use unsafe-car and unsafe-cdr * Remove the

[racket-dev] Github repo is two commits behind

2015-02-02 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
* openssl: recognize version 1.0.1j #8265c9 (3 days ago) -- latest commit in git.racket-lang * pretty-print: fix for a current inspector that sees through internals #8d49a9 (3 days ago) * fix reified-syntax-class-curry (missing role argument) #302986 (3 days ago) -- Latest commit in github

Re: [racket-dev] Racket compiler in Racket

2015-02-18 Thread Gustavo Massaccesi
. ~Leif Andersen On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Gustavo Massaccesi gust...@oma.org.ar wrote: There is project to rewrite the Racket compiler in Racket. I'd like to know if it has advanced. In particular, if it's still possible to make big changes to the C code or it's better to wait and keep