That's unfortunate. I'll wait until the next release and then try out test-case
co.
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:03:45 PM UTC-7, Alexis King wrote:
Since test-case is a macro, require/typed won't help, and unfortunately,
test-case doesn't work in Racket v6.1.1 (or earlier). It will be fixed
Since test-case is a macro, require/typed won't help, and unfortunately,
test-case doesn't work in Racket v6.1.1 (or earlier). It will be fixed in the
upcoming release, or you can download a snapshot build from here:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/snapshots/
Otherwise, I don't think there's much
Matthias and Alexander
Thanks for your responses.
As I wrote: it is not a big problem.
Now I am looking into rackunit and (
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Racket-6.2.900.3/doc/reference/require.html?q=te
st#%28form._%28%28lib._racket%2Fprivate%2Fbase..rkt%29._planet%29%29 planet
If we have a racket/exn module, would the other exn structs then be placed
there as well?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Racket Users group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
As I had to find out Racket's module system doesn't support cyclic
dependencies. In that case I should use units. But as far as I have understood
the concept of full fledged units I must either write a lot of redundant code
like signature auto^, implementation auto@, import auto^, require
Il giorno 23/mag/2015, alle ore 19.28, Matthias Felleisen ha scritto:
Why don't you put this into github and register it with the package server?
Well, I tried to download git for my Mac twice. Two times it was interrupted
after half of the 20MB version control monster had been
You could also try other options for package sources, which includes things
like .zip files and .plt files, in addition to github repositories.
http://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Package_Concepts.html#%28part._concept~3asource%29
I have no experience with using anything other than a github
The next release is in preparation. It should be out soon -- Matthias
On May 25, 2015, at 2:11 AM, Lehi Toskin wrote:
That's unfortunate. I'll wait until the next release and then try out
test-case co.
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:03:45 PM UTC-7, Alexis King wrote:
Since test-case
Hi Michael,
It would be interesting to hear about the situation that led to a cyclic
dependency.
The few cases where I have had a problem I managed to solve it by moving
all structure definitions into a separate module structs.rkt and then
requiring
that module everywhere else.
/Jens Axel
On May 25, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Michael Tiedtke wrote:
As I had to find out Racket's module system doesn't support cyclic
dependencies. In that case I should use units. But as far as I have
understood the concept of full fledged units I must either write a lot of
redundant code like
Maybe I'm over-thinking this and/or misunderstanding the use case, but:
Should there maybe be a parameter to control whether exn-string
returns anything interesting? And, should it be #f by default?
Roughly, for example:
;; When current-exn-string-enabled? is #f -- the default --
;; exn-string
Il giorno 25/mag/2015, alle ore 14.43, Jens Axel Søgaard ha scritto:
Hi Michael,
It would be interesting to hear about the situation that led to a cyclic
dependency.
The few cases where I have had a problem I managed to solve it by moving
all structure definitions into a separate
Il giorno 25/mag/2015, alle ore 14.29, Matthias Felleisen ha scritto:
On May 25, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Michael Tiedtke wrote:
As I had to find out Racket's module system doesn't support cyclic
dependencies. In that case I should use units. But as far as I have
understood the concept of
On May 25, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Michael Tiedtke michael.tied...@o2online.de
wrote:
See, you're doing away with the class definitions and substitute them with
unit definitions.
This is what I meant when I wrote you recreated encapsulation and
inheritance. (Because
linking somehow resembles
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Alexis King lexi.lam...@gmail.com wrote:
Depending on other design decisions, it make make sense to consider
this an IDE issue. That is, maybe the best thing is to have some kind
of interactive value in the REPL that lets the user have control over
the
Il giorno 25/mag/2015, alle ore 19.31, Matthias Felleisen ha scritto:
If you mean you want truly decoupled views and models, you'd end up in this
position:
#lang racket
;; decoupled model-view
(module model racket
(provide model%)
(define model%
(class object%
If you mean you want truly decoupled views and models, you'd end up in this
position:
#lang racket
;; decoupled model-view
(module model racket
(provide model%)
(define model%
(class object%
(init-field view)
(super-new)
(define the-number 12)
I recently hacked together a little GUI thingy for showing
enumerations that just let them scroll by inside what looks like the
normal enumeration print out and it works by sampling and caching the
first 200 elements of the enumeration, but being careful about errors
and to staying the user's
Alexis, think of a lazy sequence as something that the rest of the program will
explore. In addition to a GUI-based exploration, I would love to see a
programmatic one. Imagine
(explore-lazy lazy-sequence:exp strictness-pattern:exp)
where (the value of) strictness-pattern is a function
At Sun, 24 May 2015 17:26:12 -0700,
Alexis King wrote:
1. What if you do care about the order? IOW should there also be
generic cons and snoc?
Having a generic cons is a good idea, and I will consider a good way to
incorporate it. However, there are lots of tradeoffs in various
At Mon, 25 May 2015 08:03:22 +0200,
Jos Koot wrote:
Now I am looking into rackunit and (planet schematics/schemeunit:3).
I believe the former is a descendant of the latter, so you're probably
better off sticking to Rackunit.
Vincent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Would lazy-require work here?
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/lazy-require.html
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On May 25, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Michael Tiedtke michael.tied...@o2online.de
wrote:
See, you're doing away with the class
With fallback methods, you can get the best of both worlds.
You can have a base set of methods that implementers of the interface
need to write, and from which everything else can be derived. The
derived methods can also be present in the interface, which allows
implementers to override
No.
On May 25, 2015, at 6:59 PM, Luke Whittlesey wrote:
Would lazy-require work here?
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/lazy-require.html
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
On May 25, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Michael Tiedtke
Il giorno 25/mag/2015, alle ore 21.56, Matthias Felleisen ha scritto:
...
Yes, I was thinking about things like these in my other message. But
this alreaddy depends on the evaluation order which can be reversed.
Right in this example one would like to mix in lazy evaluation.
(define
25 matches
Mail list logo
