[racket-users] Re: Unit test inner procedures

Huh, that looks reasonable. So far I've not used modules much, except the implicit one by: ~~~ #lang racket ~~~ So the example is helpful. The tests are not in another file, but at least they are not inside a wrapping procedure and are in a way separate. Maybe I should have a look at the

Re: [racket-users] Re: Unit test inner procedures

+1. Totally agree. > On Nov 27, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Jack Firth wrote: > > I don't think you can directly test an inner procedure while keeping your > test code separately loadable (e.g. different file or module). It doesn't > seem like a good idea to me, personally. Inner

Re: [racket-users] Re: Alternatives to DrRacket

On 11/27/2017 3:30 PM, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote: Memory limits can be easily added to a program as well with the following code: ~~~ (define (Mb-to-B n) (* n 1024 1024)) (define MAX-BYTES (Mb-to-B 128)) (custodian-limit-memory (current-custodian) MAX-BYTES) ~~~ The problem with 

[racket-users] Re: Unit test inner procedures

I don't think you can directly test an inner procedure while keeping your test code separately loadable (e.g. different file or module). It doesn't seem like a good idea to me, personally. Inner procedures communicate to me that I can change, reorganize, delete, and otherwise do whatever I want

[racket-users] Unit test inner procedures

Sometimes I find myself thinking: "I should really write some tests for all of this!" But then I ask myself: "Uhm, how can I test some of the inner procedures of this procedure?" I sometimes use inner procedures when no other part of the code needs access to some procedure and it fits

[racket-users] Re: Alternatives to DrRacket

I don’t want to stop the responses, but I do want to say thank you to all of you. You have given me a lot to think about. Kind regards, Stephen -- Kind regards, Stephen -- Ealing (London), UK -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group.

[racket-users] Re: Alternatives to DrRacket

I mostly like the text navigation features I have in Emacs. I also like that I can run a shell inside Emacs and manage multiple buffers easily. Installing different color themes is easy too, while in DrRacket I would probably have to configure the colors myself (I might be wrong though, not

[racket-users] Re: Alternatives to DrRacket

I use Emacs because org-mode provides Babel and Babel lets me program in a literate style. In Emacs I can write literate code irrespective of language and I enjoy literate programming more than illiterate/unlitterate/conventional programming by a wide margin. Emacs org-mode lets me convert my

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

documentation (albeit limited) on the macro stepper: http://docs.racket-lang.org/macro-debugger/index.html#%28part._.Using_the_.Macro_.Stepper%29 You can also find `expand/step` there, which I find to be a very useful complement to using DrRacket to step through the expansion of an entire module.

Re: [racket-users] Examples of in-source documentation?

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > As another example of using scribble/srcdoc, for Frog I made a > `define-doc` macro: > > > https://github.com/greghendershott/frog/blob/master/frog/private/define-doc.rkt > > Example usage: > >

Re: [racket-users] Examples of in-source documentation?

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Does the following do something like you want? > > Subject: single-file packages and embedded documentation and metadata > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 23:04:39 -0500 >

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

Le Monday 27 November 2017 05:18:02 pm David Storrs, vous avez écrit : > > > 2. The macro stepper is extremely handy when it works, and being able to > > inspect syntax objects in the interactions pane is wonderful when the > > macro stepper doesn't work. > > Offtopic: This is the one big

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:43 PM, David Thrane Christiansen wrote: > Hi Stephen, > >> I’ve noticed some list members use other editors or IDE’s. >> >> I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors; >> normally a combination of familiarity

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:48:16AM +, Robby Findler wrote: > It may help to disable online compilation. (Click on the little circle in > the bottom to get a menu that lets you disable it.) Ah! Thanks for the suggestion; I'll give that a try. Richard -- You received this message because

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

I generally use DrRacket for all my Racket dev because it "just works (tm)". I have sometimes used other editors for it, and the main things I miss from those usually are autocomplete (DrR has this but it's always been way too slow for me so I never turn it on), more detailed syntax highlighting

RE: [racket-users] misterious empty line

Hi Ben, Your guess seems reasonable. The empty line does not appear when I put the comment in one long line, but this is ugly. Defining the comment outside the definition works well, so I'll use this hack as follows: @elemtag["rearrangement" "Not important."] @(define my-comment (list

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

It may help to disable online compilation. (Click on the little circle in the bottom to get a menu that lets you disable it.) Robby On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:21 PM Richard Cobbe wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 03:42:14PM +, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote: > > Hi, > > > >

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

i use emacs with all Scheme implementations and also for Racket,when debugging i can use the racket editor that display information about trace calls but i still modify in emacs and refresh only in DrRacket, in emacs i appeciate the syntax highlighting and the search and replace fast short-cuts