[racket-users] Tools and Syntax Highlighting

Hi Racket, Is it possible for a tool invoked by info.rkt to access code which is outside of the tool? We’re building a #lang and would like to have on-demand syntax highlighting. We’ve tried using a tool, and have successfully made a button and a menu item that do it, but we’d like to activate

Re: [racket-users] Why do single-form modules behave differently?

Fantastic, thank you ~slg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, January 3, 2021 12:14 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote: > It's the consequence of two design goals: > > 1. The `module` form is separate from the `#%module-begin` syntax hook so > that the module's initial language can pick the

[racket-users] Re: Typed Racket: require macros from untyped modules

I continued doing various tests and realized that my problem was something else, since the following code works: #lang typed/racket (module untyped-submodule racket (provide a macro) (define a 2) (define-syntax-rule (macro arg) (+ 1 arg))) (require 'untyped-submodule) (macro 3) Using a

Re: [racket-users] I made some videos about Racket (a.k.a the return of Playing the Game with PLT Redex)

Thanks for sharing. I honed in on the review video because I like the philosophical discussions that come from them. I'm not sure about the comments re: toxicity in the community and how that helps one succeed in academia, but I did see some value in discussing the merits of LOP. I spent

[racket-users] Typed Racket: require macros from untyped modules

Hello, How can I require macros coming from untyped modules into typed modules? Intuitively I'd expect that to be possible in a way or another because such imports don't seem to violate any safety guarantees, but maybe I'm missing something. - Sergiu -- You received this message because you

Re: [racket-users] Why do single-form modules behave differently?

It's the consequence of two design goals: 1. The `module` form is separate from the `#%module-begin` syntax hook so that the module's initial language can pick the hook macro that controls the entire module body. 2. Racket's primitive syntax is designed so that it can be re-expanded. (The

Re: [racket-users] PLT Redex: how to falsify the judgment in define-judgment-form

I think this boils down to a question about how redex executes judgment forms. Leaving aside modeless judgment forms (where redex will only check a derivation for you but won't ever make them up), redex is turning each judgment form into a (fancy) function from the inputs to sets of the outputs

[racket-users] I made some videos about Racket (a.k.a the return of Playing the Game with PLT Redex)

Hi all, Here are the videos: Playing the Game with PLT Redex: https://youtu.be/NszLQNROdw0 Understanding the Type of call/cc: https://youtu.be/7Zkt_IJaYOY Racket: Why I Think It’s a Great Language, and Why I’m Not Using It Anymore: https://youtu.be/_wY7FBtr7_c The first two used to be articles

[racket-users] PLT Redex: how to falsify the judgment in define-judgment-form

Hi, Racketeers Since Redex can calculate all possible results in the judgment, Can I add some negative premise to help derive the output? like (define-judgment-form Lambda #:mode (infer I O) [(infer A B) *(not (infer number B)* - (Infer C B)] I tried to replace bold line