On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:27:53AM -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> Does the file without arrows have a syntax error?
>
> Robby
That was th problem. Not in the file itself, which the main file
for the Racket openGL binding, but in a generated file I included.
I forgot I had modified the include
On May 7, 2020, at 12:44 AM, Philip McGrath wrote:
> Rather than designing an ad hoc system of indirection that can handle all of
> the complexity,* I suggest using the one that already exists: units, Racket's
> original, first-class (rather than first-order) module system, offer support
> for
Does the file without arrows have a syntax error?
Robby
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:55 AM Hendrik Boom wrote:
> I have several tabs open in DrRacket.
> On two of them, when I mouse over a symbol, it provides very
> visible links to binding or bound occurrences
>
> On the third, it doesn't.
I have several tabs open in DrRacket.
On two of them, when I mouse over a symbol, it provides very
visible links to binding or bound occurrences
On the third, it doesn't. There is a right-click mey item to jump
to the binding occurrence, but no menu item to find next bound
occurrence.
One
Awesome - keep them coming.
You should feature one in each Racket-News!
Stephen
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 10:33, Laurent wrote:
> Have you ever wanted to extract a block of code out of its context and
> wrap it in a function?
>
> Have you ever *not* done it because of the cognitive load(*) of
that is really cool! thanks for sharing!
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 10:33, Laurent wrote:
> Have you ever wanted to extract a block of code out of its context and
> wrap it in a function?
>
> Have you ever *not* done it because of the cognitive load(*) of figuring
> out the function arguments and
Nice!! Yay for laziness.
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:33 AM Laurent wrote:
> Have you ever wanted to extract a block of code out of its context and
> wrap it in a function?
>
> Have you ever *not* done it because of the cognitive load(*) of figuring
> out the function arguments and the return
Awesome! Thanks. Racket is freaking amazing.
Dex
> On May 7, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>
>
> You can use syntax/loc to give a piece of syntax location information.
>
> #lang racket
> (require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
>
> (define-syntax (assert stx)
> (syntax-parse stx
You can use syntax/loc to give a piece of syntax location information.
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
(define-syntax (assert stx)
(syntax-parse stx
[(_assert ?a ?b)
(quasisyntax/loc stx
(module+ test
(require rackunit)
#,(syntax/loc stx
Check out `make-check-location` and friends, and maybe `with-check-info*`
https://docs.racket-lang.org/rackunit/api.html?q=define-check#%28def._%28%28lib._rackunit%2Fmain..rkt%29._make-check-location%29%29
You may have to combine with the syntax-information extracted from the
syntax object `stx`.
Have you ever wanted to extract a block of code out of its context and wrap
it in a function?
Have you ever *not* done it because of the cognitive load(*) of figuring
out the function arguments and the return values?
Well, now it's as easy as Ctrl-Shift-X and Ctrl-Shift-Y. Using
check-syntax,
Hi,
I made a simple macro which saves me the trouble of defining a test
module, requiring RackUnit and then declaring '(module+ test' after each
procedure definition, as I like to keep unit tests close by. The repo :
https://github.com/DexterLagan/assert
Here's the macro, apologies for the
Hi James,
Like others said, Unit is the proper solution, but to add my 2c, I was
able to avoid this problem altogether by using these two simple tricks :
1) add the controls in the order of their requirement (defining table3
before info-menu-item), then re-ordering the controls before
13 matches
Mail list logo
