On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 11:50:26 PM UTC+1 Ben Greenman wrote:
> > If the answer is no, is there any interest in including these three
> > functions (as well as compose-5, 6, 7, 8) into Typed Racket?
>
> I think these would be excellent in a package.
>
> A package for compose-n and
It occurs to me that another approach here -- possibly a necessary one
given the current setup of the package server -- would be to manually
intervene. Presumably, it's possible for a package server admin to just
manually associate a package with a certain account?
On Thursday, December 10,
Is it possible to change my email address on the package server? It doesn't
appear so, but perhaps I'm missing something. If not, what would be the
recommended way of accomplishing an email change? I can create a new
account, of course. But how to claim ownership of an existing package? Can
> If the answer is no, is there any interest in including these three
> functions (as well as compose-5, 6, 7, 8) into Typed Racket?
I think these would be excellent in a package.
Someday later, perhaps poly dots and #:rest-star can combine to
improve the built-in type.
--
You received this
Hello all,
The date of the submission deadline for recordings was a typo. I have
updated the CfP at the wiki link
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/FOSDEM2021-devroom-declarative-and-minimalistic-computing
to the 7th of January.
Of course keep in mind that this is not a hard deadline, and we can
Hi Nicolas,
I do want to encourage you to keep thinking about this stuff -- some
of the things I described are definitely doable and would be
interesting projects, even if re-writing the entire expander is a big
task.
Sam
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:46 PM nicobao wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've read
Hi all,
I've read with great attention your messages, especially Sam's very
comprehensive answer.
I now clearly understand that it's a research-level work, and I was
definitely too ambitious in trying to dig into that - as I have limited
time after my day job (and probably too limited
Here's an example:
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
(define-syntax (foo stx)
(syntax-parse stx
[(_ arg:id)
#:when (regexp-match "[$]" (symbol->string (syntax-e #'arg)))
#'1]
[(_ arg) #'2]))
(foo $abc)
(foo abc)
That prints 1 followed by 2.
Sam
On Wed,
Hi guys,
Is there a way to detect a character in a symbol in a macro so that one branch
of the syntax-parse would be chosen or discarded based on that?
Here’s roughly what I’m getting at….
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
(define-syntax (foo stx)
(syntax-parse stx
[(_
Hello.
Is the PR #3518 “Create `racket/place/dynamic` to reduce dependencies.” going
to happen?
I was trying to use ‘#%place and its `dynamic-place` but realized i have to do
some management of streams, i think.
Nate
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
10 matches
Mail list logo
