Re: [racket-users] Re: Running racket on a #lang-less module-less file?

Jack, There exists a language that wasn't initially designed with racket in mind, but could easily be a racket #lang. To interop with code already written in this language, I wanted an easy way to run files that don't have the #lang line. I had a very similar case when I had to create a

Re: [racket-users] Re: Running racket on a #lang-less module-less file?

In case this was directed at me: yes, I agree. Robby On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Kieron Hardy wrote: > +1 > > Yes, specifying the language to use when interpreting some source, is best in > the input source itself than in the reference to that source. > > But why

Re: [racket-users] Re: Running racket on a #lang-less module-less file?

+1 Yes, specifying the language to use when interpreting some source, is best in the input source itself than in the reference to that source. But why must it be one or the other, and not some sensible combination of both. e.g. If the #lang is absent from the source, look for and/or override

Re: [racket-users] Re: Running racket on a #lang-less module-less file?

+1 On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jack Firth wrote: > William's remark is spot on about my use-case. There exists a language that > wasn't initially designed with racket in mind, but could easily be a racket > #lang. To interop with code already written in this language,

[racket-users] Re: Running racket on a #lang-less module-less file?

William's remark is spot on about my use-case. There exists a language that wasn't initially designed with racket in mind, but could easily be a racket #lang. To interop with code already written in this language, I wanted an easy way to run files that don't have the #lang line. If I were