Re: [racket-users] Of editors and mere mortals

2016-11-09 Thread Tomasz Rola
On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 09:23:01PM -0500, David Storrs wrote: > I've been using Emacs as my sole text editor since about 1990. Things I > use on a daily basis include: > > - Dired mode > - Org mode > - iswitchb (which I think has been obsoleted by something else, but still > works fine) > -

Re: [racket-users] Re: Matching on a prefab struct

2016-11-09 Thread 'William J. Bowman' via Racket Users
What I'm doing: macros generating macros generating structs, and elimination forms those structs. Matching against a list of arbitrary fields is easier than keeping track of the actual fields. struct->list might be what I want; thanks! -- Sent from my phoneamajig > On Nov 9, 2016, at 19:23,

Re: [racket-users] Matching on a prefab struct

2016-11-09 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
It looks like there are a few things going on here. 1. ,@(list-rest a) doesn't work in general in quasi-patterns. That's because (list-rest a) matches anything, and ,@() patterns expect to take something that only match lists. It's ok to have them at the end of something, as you do here, so I'll

[racket-users] Matching on a prefab struct

2016-11-09 Thread 'William J. Bowman' via Racket Users
The following simple example does not behave as expected on my machine. Am I expecting wrong or is the machine behaving wrong? ``` #lang racket (struct meow (e) #:prefab) (require racket/match) (match #s(meow 1) [`#s(meow ,@(list-rest a)) a]) ``` Expected behavior: return (list 1)

Re: [racket-users] find-seconds daylight saving

2016-11-09 Thread Matthew Flatt
Thanks very much for tracking down the problem! I've pushed a repair. At Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:31:53 -0500, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > I think Robby is right and the problem is here: > https://github.com/racket/racket/blob/4ce947da74d09abc9cda10a14e7407cda9386a44/ > racket/src/racket/src/fun.c#L9876 > >

Re: [racket-users] find-seconds daylight saving

2016-11-09 Thread Jon Zeppieri
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:24 PM, George Neuner wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 11/8/2016 6:28 PM, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > > > George, these are not correct results. The UTC offset is correct, but the >> time fields are not -- under the assumption that you're trying to >> round-trip