No worries. Thank you for the help as always.
On 4/16/21 2:11 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Yes, attaching a module instances doesn't `require` it anywhere.
>
> (Sorry --- I didn't look at your program closely enough to work out
> whether you meant to require it, start out with a non-empty
Yes, attaching a module instances doesn't `require` it anywhere.
(Sorry --- I didn't look at your program closely enough to work out
whether you meant to require it, start out with a non-empty namespace,
or something else.)
At Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:02:47 +, Sage Gerard wrote:
> Yes. The error
Yes. The error changed to "hello: unbound identifier, also no #%app ..."
for me, so I also had to add `(namespace-require (quote-module-path
restricted) ns)` to get it working.
Were you expecting that I had to do that too? The docs for the
`make-base-*-namespace` procedures make it sound like
The name `'restricted` is allowed as a shorthand in `require` because
`require` knows what module it's in. The `namespace-attach-module`
function does not try to infer a module context from the namespace
argument; it uses the namespace argument only for its registry. So, you
need to use the full
Why does this raise "namespace-attach-module: module not declared (in
the source namespace)"?
I expected that the `restricted` submodule would be both declared and
instantiated by the time control reached `namespace-attach-module`.
(module anon racket/base
(module restricted racket/base
I'd like to use `eval` in terms of a restricted namespace including
`#%datum` and `#%app`. For minimalism and security, I want to build that
namespace starting from an empty one, without using racket/sandbox,
security guards, or attaching racket/base.
Under these restrictions, I would normally
I wanted to polish things a bit before starting a longer discussion, but
here we go ;-)
The code in question[1] is part of my work into exchanging unsafe
modules which can be used either contracted or uncontracted for TR
modules. The goal is to replace racket/unsafe/ops with TR to provide
(Not experienced with typed racket) How about something like this, is there
something bad about this?
(fxquotient (-> Fixnum Fixnum Fixnum))
(fixnum->byte (-> Fixnum Byte)) ;; possible runtime error
(fixnum->byte (fxquotient rs n))
(I don't expect a type to always snap to the narrower one
To improve this, we'd have to extend the type of `fxquotient`, which
is reasonable, but I'm not sure what the addition would be. In
particular, your addition is not sound:
(fxquotient 1024 2) produces 512 which is not a Byte.
Sam
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:22 PM Dominik Pantůček
wrote:
>
>
Yes! Thank you.
Dex
From: Matthew Flatt
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 3:26:19 PM
To: Dexter Lagan
Cc: Racket Users
Subject: Re: [racket-users] Wheel / touchpad / trackpoint accuracy/speed
scrolling fix for DrRacket
Oh, I think I finally get it.
The problem
Oh, I think I finally get it.
The problem is that the leftover amount is returned by `gen-wheels`.
With scaling by `wheel-scale`, the returned leftover has been scaled
--- but when the leftover is passed back to `gen-wheels` later, it gets
scaled again.
Applying the scale to `WHEEL_DELTA`
Hi Matt,
This works because when amt is smaller than WHEEL_DELTA, the amt value is
used directly, see first branch of the cond :
(cond
* [((abs amt) . < . WHEEL_DELTA_S)*
(case wheel-steps-mode
[(one integer) amt]
12 matches
Mail list logo
