Re: [racket-users] Scribbling documentation for a module beginning with _

Oooh...that is an interesting case. FWIW, you could always cheat, and have the docs use a different name for the module for defmodule's, and manually typeset the correct name out. Its kind of a kludge though: ``` @defmodule[@racketmodfont{_-exp} #:module-paths (secret_-exp)

[racket-users] Scribbling documentation for a module beginning with _

I'm trying to write documentation for a module named _-exp, and I'm running into a problem because (I think) of the way underscores are treated by racketblock . Using

[racket-users] Racket summer school

The Racket Summer School of Semantics and Languages Imagine yourself confronted with a Mystery Programming Language and charged with the task of figuring out its semantics. What would you do? What if you have a formal executable semantics and want to build a production language for it? If

Re: [racket-users] Names for flat-contract-with-explanation contracts

Probably it would be good to make rename-contract and flat-named-contract cooperate better with flat-contract-with-explanation, but for now I've just added a #:name argument, whose value defaults to the name of the procedure that's passed in. Robby On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Philip

Re: [racket-users] Announcing Leibniz, a new language in the Racket universe

Yes, this clarifies everything, thanks! Some more comments/thoughts. I would suggest adding a @(table-of-contents) to the top of every page: it helps the reader know what is coming ahead. For instance, it's good for me to know up front that I don't have to understand sec 1 all by myself, because

Re: [racket-users] Announcing Leibniz, a new language in the Racket universe

Shriram Krishnamurthi writes: > The Lotka-Volterra example is very helpful, thanks. It is still a bit > unclear from the formatting which part is the Leibniz code. Is it the two > lines marked pp1 and pp2? Are they literal code? I guess I prefer to use a > typewriter face to

Re: [racket-users] [racket][draw] some APIs should be more open

Sorry I didn't describe my idea clearly before. Actually, in my framework (I've been writing a CSS Engine), all those objects are immutable and singular by design. The problem is, there is no way for client application to tell those primary classes "The object is already immutable". (define