I have a long package documentation and get lots of warnings - see
below. Other than that, the docs work fine, should/can I ignore them?
What do they mean anyway?
Best,
Erich
WARNING: collected information for key multiple times: '(exporting-libraries
#f); values: '(appy/gui) '(appy)
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paulo Matos wrote:
> I am keen on hearing about alternatives. The reason to do like this is
> to minimize friction with clients. Clients in the area of development
> tools expect something that they can execute and generally are not too
> keen on scripty calls
Dear Racketeers,
I’m writing about difficulties using make-evaluator in Racket v7.0 with a
module that selectively (or not) re-exports bindings from an existing language.
This is related to work I’m doing with the handin server.
- the short version -
Create this file, and use as follows:
If you want a permissive license, the FSF itself says that "Apache 2.0 is
best" because it addresses patent issues:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html#small
-Philip
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:32 PM Deren Dohoda wrote:
> I put a package up but it has no license info in
I put a package up but it has no license info in the code. I would add one
which is the most permissive possible that wouldn't cause conflict. I guess
this is BSD? MIT?
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 12:30 PM Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> BTW, I don't know the status of possible new GPL and LGPL versions in
>
Dear Racketeers,
Racket has just received the
2018 ACM SIGPLAN Software Systems Award
We are honored by this award, but it belongs to more than the core
group of people named in the citation. Many people have invested time
and energy into this language.
The language is what it is
On 09/26/2018 05:32 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote:
> I put a package up but it has no license info in the code. I would add
> one which is the most permissive possible that wouldn't cause conflict.
> I guess this is BSD? MIT?
In this case, don't license your code, declare it to be in the public
domain.
On 25/09/2018 23:38, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 9/25/18 1:11 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>> [] Personally, I would appreciate a way to ask
>> Racket to strip all phase ≥1 code and phase ≥1 dependencies from a
>> specified program so that I can distribute the phase 0 code and
>> dependencies
On 25/09/2018 23:44, Philip McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 3:46 PM 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> mailto:racket-users@googlegroups.com>>
> wrote:
>
> OK, so I understand now that what I want is an unimplemented feature,
> but in most compilers these days and certainly those
On 25/09/2018 23:38, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 9/25/18 1:11 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>> [] Personally, I would appreciate a way to ask
>> Racket to strip all phase ≥1 code and phase ≥1 dependencies from a
>> specified program so that I can distribute the phase 0 code and
>> dependencies
10 matches
Mail list logo
