Brian,
Since this has turned out to be relevant for other reasons, can you
say how you ended up using version 6.0? Was it automatically available
to you somewhere, or did you install it?
Sam
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:46 PM Brian Craft wrote:
>
> yeah, maybe version. Has this changed since 6.0?
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> Version 6.0 was released 5 years ago, so while I don't recall exactly when
> the prefix -> syntax was introduced, it was most likely since then.
The -> prefix syntax was introduced in version 6.0.1. If you really need to use
> It bothers me that the change applies only to HTML output and not PDF
> output via LaTeX, but I don't see a way to get that effect via LaTeX
> without substantial changes.
Is it possible to wrap each line in an \mbox, or to have SVerbatim
make the \textwidth extremely wide?
--
You received
At Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:58:54 -0500, David Storrs wrote:
> Turning off line wrapping would definitely be good, yes.
I've pushed that change.
It bothers me that the change applies only to HTML output and not PDF
output via LaTeX, but I don't see a way to get that effect via LaTeX
without
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:59 PM Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> At Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:51:58 -0500, David Storrs wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > > The line breaks are added by a browser, because `verbatim` doesn't
> > > generate anything that disables line wrapping.
Ah, nice. Thanks, Joel.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:59 PM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users
wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:03:46 AM UTC-6, David K. Storrs wrote:
>>
>> Also, it would be really spiffy if the generated HTML was
>> pretty-printed. Having it minified seems
1. I think the Flonum -> Nonnegative-Flonum change would be easy to do.
2. `define-predicate` uses contracts, and contracts have significant
overhead that simpler functions like `positive?` don't.
3. Can you file bugs for the OC issue?
Sam
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:23 PM 'John Clements' via
I was doing some very low-key monte carlo testing today, and I wanted to
whether it would magically get faster if I used TR. The short answer is … well,
wait on that. Here’s my program; it’s supposed to check the likelihood that
three randomly chosen numbers in the interval 0-1 could be the
On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:03:46 AM UTC-6, David K. Storrs wrote:
> Also, it would be really spiffy if the generated HTML was
> pretty-printed. Having it minified seems unnecessary and
> disadvantageous.
>
>
On occasions where I’ve wanted to go spelunking in Scribble-generated
At Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:51:58 -0500, David Storrs wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > The line breaks are added by a browser, because `verbatim` doesn't
> > generate anything that disables line wrapping.
>
> I'm pretty sure that this is not coming from my browser,
Dear Matthias,
Would you be willing to share your thoughts about the history of
denotational versus operational semantics in the report?
Thanks.
==
Arthur Nunes-Harwitt
Computer Science Department, Rochester Institute of
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> At Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:03:33 -0500, David Storrs wrote:
> > I have a .scrbl file with the following:
> >
> > @verbatim{
> > ...stuff...
> > | #:rule (rule-name #:transform field-id
> > (field-id ...+) (code ...+))
>
At Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:03:33 -0500, David Storrs wrote:
> I have a .scrbl file with the following:
>
> @verbatim{
> ...stuff...
> | #:rule (rule-name #:transform field-id
> (field-id ...+) (code ...+))
> }
>
> My expectation is that this will render, well, verbatim.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:03 PM David Storrs wrote:
>
> I have a .scrbl file with the following:
>
> @verbatim{
> ...stuff...
> | #:rule (rule-name #:transform field-id
> (field-id ...+) (code ...+))
> }
>
> My expectation is that this will render, well, verbatim.
I have a .scrbl file with the following:
@verbatim{
...stuff...
| #:rule (rule-name #:transform field-id
(field-id ...+) (code ...+))
}
My expectation is that this will render, well, verbatim. Instead, it
adds a line break so that I get:
| #:rule
Thanks, I'll check it out.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:18 PM Jon Zeppieri wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:58 PM David Storrs wrote:
>>
>> Given a database handle, I'd like to be able to ask it what user it's
>> connected as. Is there a way to do this?
>>
>
> I don't see anything in the
And because it is nothing else but a usual binding, it's possible to
prefix-in or rename-in as in
(require (prefix-in r: racket/base))
(case 5 [r:else 'ok])
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 7:32 AM Laurent wrote:
>
> Good point. I wasn't sure that would work---it does.
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:28
A long time ago I had a need for this too, so I just made one for me:
https://github.com/Metaxal/bazaar/blob/master/slideshow/slideshow-tree.rkt
The behaviour is a bit different from pict/tree-layout.
There's an example usage in the drracket submodule at the end of the file
that produces:
[image:
Good point. I wasn't sure that would work---it does.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:28 PM Jens Axel Søgaard
wrote:
> I suppose you could (re)require it again.
>
> ons. 27. feb. 2019 kl. 14.19 skrev Laurent :
>
>> Wait, that means that in an interactive session, if you ever happen to
>> redefine
I suppose you could (re)require it again.
ons. 27. feb. 2019 kl. 14.19 skrev Laurent :
> Wait, that means that in an interactive session, if you ever happen to
> redefine `else', you can't use `case' anymore?
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:03 AM Ben Greenman
> wrote:
>
>> Here's a suggestion for
Wait, that means that in an interactive session, if you ever happen to
redefine `else', you can't use `case' anymore?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:03 AM Ben Greenman
wrote:
> Here's a suggestion for the docs:
>
> https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/2505
>
> --
> You received this message because
This question has been burning me up as well.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:16 PM Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
>
> Let me inject some comments that make it a bit more obvious what’s
> happening here:
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> wrote:
> >
>
> RnRS meetings from 1984
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 2:35 PM Jack Firth wrote:
> This feels tedious and unnecessary. Looking at the underlying API of
> make-struct-type, I can't see any way to avoid this mutual recursion.
>
There may be some situations where struct definitions make essential use of
fixed points, but the
23 matches
Mail list logo
