[racket-users] Re: gen:stream doc fix?

I agree with your explanation and your version. I think nobody expects stream-rest to change the concrete type of stream, unless there is a good reason for it. My guess is that nobody noticed because it happens to work. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote: > > Distributing a closed-source, non-LGPL Racket application without > violating Racket’s licensing terms is likely to be very difficult or > impossible, pending the still-ongoing MIT + Apache 2 relicensing effort. > > This

[racket-users] LaTeX

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 02:50:06PM -0700, Ilnar Selimcan wrote: ... > > Arithmetic expressions can be included in s-expression code by simply > wrapping them with $ signs, like in Latex. ''' LaTeX ... interesting. It is a pure notation without semantics. That is, it is a notation whose

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

> On 27 Aug 19, at 9:27 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > 4. The interpretation of the LGPL as it relates to Racket that appears > on the download page is our (the Racket leadership) interepretation, > not the SFCs. None of us are lawyers, but that remains our > interpretation. So Racket's

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users wrote on 8/27/19 12:17 PM: On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote: Distributing a closed-source, non-LGPL Racket application without violating Racket’s licensing terms is likely to be very difficult or impossible, This was

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:17:46 AM UTC+8, Joel Dueck wrote: > > On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote: >> >> Distributing a closed-source, non-LGPL Racket application without >> violating Racket’s licensing terms is likely to be very difficult or >>

[racket-users] Is there an expanded form of the Racket2 purpose declaration?

The discussion on Racket2 seems to have moved offlist to the RFC list on github (https://github.com/racket/racket2-rfcs/issues); are there other locations? There is one question that I had back at the beginning of the process that I didn't manage to get clarity on, which is the rationale behind

Re: [racket-users] LaTeX

Hendrik, hello. (a tangent...) On 27 Aug 2019, at 14:16, Hendrik Boom wrote: > That said, it doesn't even have a stable syntax. I tried to find a > grammar for parsing LaTeX, and discovered there is none. It seems > LaTeX's macros do the parsing, and they're a Turing-complete > laanguage.