I had already merged it but I agree that it could probably stand to
have a little elaboration now. I'll do it.
Robby
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 9:12 PM John Clements wrote:
>
> Many thanks! Should I cancel my pull request?
>
> John
>
> > On Mar 21, 2020, at 18:34, Robby Findler wrote:
> >
> >
Many thanks! Should I cancel my pull request?
John
> On Mar 21, 2020, at 18:34, Robby Findler wrote:
>
> I've pushed something so that racket:text% will indent better when it
> doesn't have a display.
>
> Robby
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 4:32 PM John Clements
> wrote:
>>
>> Made a pull
I've pushed something so that racket:text% will indent better when it
doesn't have a display.
Robby
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 4:32 PM John Clements wrote:
>
> Made a pull request, many thanks!
>
> John
>
> > On Mar 20, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Robby Findler
> > wrote:
> >
> > Looks right to me!
> >
>
Hello,
I come to Racket from Haskell and so far I am quite happy, as I feel freer
to do some weird stuff from time to time, and I am absolutely in love with
the Lisp-parens syntax.
As a former Haskeller, one of the first things I tried was Typed Racket.
It worked like a charm for small
Right, sorry, I should have added… doing *that* (eliminating the traces for
production code) is almost trivial: just make a macro that’s defined to
disappear when a flag is set:
#lang racket
(define-for-syntax production-flag #f)
(define-syntax (debug-only stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_
Thanks, you answered my question. I’m educating myself in ways to debug
Scheme, coming from an imperative background.
I suspect the solution would be to leave the trace statements in and use a
conditional when delivering production code.
> On Mar 21, 2020, at 2:27 PM, John Clements wrote:
It sounds like you’re looking for a way to have the trace inserted for you by a
debugging tool, so you don’t have to remember to take it out again later. This
wouldn’t be hard to do, but (as far as I know) no one’s taken the time to do it.
John
> On Mar 21, 2020, at 8:43 AM, Nicholas Papadonis
I was successful with MIT Scheme placing (trace proc) inside the closure of
this code. Placing (trace proc) outside the closure did not have any
effect.
This is the question I'm asking. Is it possible to trace without modifying
the closure?
I ask due to forward thinking about software
On 3/21/20, dgtlcmo wrote:
> Does anyone know how to trace functions inside a closure? I would like to
> trace hanoi-move, however find that with MIT Scheme I need to place (trace)
>
> within the closure (hanoi n), otherwise the trace will not occur.
>
> Can a trace like this be performed in
At Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Yongming Shen wrote:
> First, in the source file expander/expand/bind-top.rkt, there is a comment
> that says "When compiling `(define-values (x) ...)` at the top level,
> we'd like to bind `x` so that a reference in the "..." will point back to
> the
Hi guys,
Can I get a hint for Exercise 342 find-all
--
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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this
Hi,
in Guile there are some modules inspired by Andy Wingos paper:
"applications of fold to xml transformation"
In Guile these concepts are used not only for xml processing but for tree
processing in general
I was wondering if anything similar is available for Racket
I'm having a hard time in
Hi,
I noticed that top level (define-values ...) forms create bindings that
include the top-level-bind-scope (of the namespace's root-expand-context),
and have two questions related to this.
First, in the source file expander/expand/bind-top.rkt, there is a comment
that says "When compiling
13 matches
Mail list logo
