RE: [racket-users] custom-print called twice?

Thanks for the answer, rapid as always. Jos -Original Message- From: Matthew Flatt [mailto:mfl...@cs.utah.edu] Sent: miércoles, 02 de septiembre de 2015 2:11 To: Jos Koot Cc: 'racket users'; jos.k...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [racket-users] custom-print called twice? The first call is to

Re: [racket-users] Class constracts and equality

Hi Asumu, > In particular, the code for class contracts explicitly installs a value for > the > inspector that doesn't allow inspection (there's a comment saying "No > inspection"). Thanks for exploring this, at least I now know what's going on! > But maybe it's worth revisiting this part

Re: [racket-users] Lost in ellipsis depths

I think you want either this: (syntax-parse #'(foo a b c) [(f:id s:id ...) (map (λ (s) (format-id #'f "foo-~a" s)) (syntax->list #'(s ...)))]) or that: (syntax-parse #'(foo a b c) [(f:id s:id ...) #'(list (format-id #'f "foo-~a" #'s) ...)]) On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Konrad Hinsen

[racket-users] http response 204 (no content) with content-encoding "gzip"

I’m interacting with an HTTP server that recently responded with status #"HTTP/1.1 204 No Content” and headers '(#"Content-Encoding: gzip" #"Request-Id: ec2f6fe5-5191-11e5-8007-” #"X-Influxdb-Version: 0.9.3” #"Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 16:44:48 GMT” #"Connection: close”) using

Re: [racket-users] http response 204 (no content) with content-encoding "gzip"

Certain status codes "MUST NOT" include a response body, including 204 [0]. For those, you could say not even a `peek-byte` is necessary. Although I guess there wouldn't be any harm. Definitely for the other variants -- even "SHOULD NOT" -- then peek-byte makes sense. [0]:

Re: [racket-users] Interaction between break and custodian-box

I've pushed a repair for the bug --- and I'm glad you found a workaround meanwhile. Thanks for the report! At Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:48:32 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote: > Oops, I'd meant to copy the list. > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Greg Hendershott > wrote: > >

Re: [racket-users] can # structures be made transparent?

I thought it was exposed as a function, not as a constructor. Maybe there's not much difference. I guess I don't really mind. It hasn't changed in a long time. Sorry for the noise. PR away! :) Robby On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:09 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users

Re: [racket-users] Official Docker images for Racket

I've previously tried to minimize the build without any success, so if you can make a base image using only busybox or alpine linux without any problems that'd obviously be preferable. On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Asumu Takikawa wrote: On 2015-09-02 15:35:25 -0700, Jack Firth wrote: I do a lot of

[racket-users] Interaction between break and custodian-box

When you break an expression in the REPL, currently racket-mode takes you out of the module/environment. I want to change that: https://github.com/greghendershott/racket-mode/issues/153 To do so, instead of grabbing the break using `with-handlers`, I'm using `call-with-exception-handler` and

Re: [racket-users] Official Docker images for Racket

On 2015-09-02 15:35:25 -0700, Jack Firth wrote: > I do a lot of Racket development in Docker, and it's a pretty big pain. > There's a handful of images on Docker Hub but they're pretty unmaintained, > usually lag behind a version or two, tend to be built off an unnecessarily > large base image

[racket-users] can # structures be made transparent?

It appears to me that the # structure (as e.g. from net/url) is opaque. Is there any good reason for this? It’s kind of a pain (the default printer doesn’t show me the fields), and I don’t see any good reason for it, especially given the existence of url->string. I’d be happy to formulate this

Re: [racket-users] can # structures be made transparent?

It makes sense to me to make a printer that uses URL->string. On Wednesday, September 2, 2015, 'John Clements' via Racket Users < racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > It appears to me that the # structure (as e.g. from net/url) is > opaque. Is there any good reason for this? It’s kind of a

Re: [racket-users] can # structures be made transparent?

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > > It makes sense to me to make a printer that uses URL->string. Actually, I kind of don’t want that... Here’s my use case: I have a url string, "http://localhost:8086/query?db=mydb”. I want to add more query

Re: [racket-users] can # structures be made transparent?

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > > I was worrying because the internal representation may change (again) so > exposing the real constructor doesn't seem wise. But making a printer print > what you want (or using selectors to check if it comes

Re: [racket-users] can # structures be made transparent?

I was worrying because the internal representation may change (again) so exposing the real constructor doesn't seem wise. But making a printer print what you want (or using selectors to check if it comes to that) seems okay. Robby On Wednesday, September 2, 2015, 'John Clements' via Racket Users

Re: [racket-users] http response 204 (no content) with content-encoding "gzip"

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Greg Hendershott > wrote: > > Certain status codes "MUST NOT" include a response body, including 204 [0]. > > For those, you could say not even a `peek-byte` is necessary. Although > I guess there wouldn't be any harm. > > Definitely

Re: [racket-users] Interaction between break and custodian-box

That looks like a bug in the scheduler to me. I don't think it's specific to `custodian-box`, but to `sync` and any event that is not ultimately backed by a channel or semaphore. (For example, `alarm-evt` also seems to trigger the problem.) At Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:20:56 -0400, Greg Hendershott

[racket-users] Official Docker images for Racket

I do a lot of Racket development in Docker, and it's a pretty big pain. There's a handful of images on Docker Hub but they're pretty unmaintained, usually lag behind a version or two, tend to be built off an unnecessarily large base image like ubuntu, don't offer a snapshot build, and don't

Re: [racket-users] Interaction between break and custodian-box

Oops, I'd meant to copy the list. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > Thanks for the quick reply! > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> That looks like a bug in the scheduler to me. I don't think it's >>

[racket-users] Lost in ellipsis depths

Konrad Hinsen writes: > In fact, what I want is do something like map over the ellipsis pattern, > but I haven't seen any example for doing this. Well, map actually works: (syntax-parse #'(foo a b c) [(f:id s:id ...) (with-syntax ([(foo-s ...) (map (λ (x)

Re: [racket-users] Lost in ellipsis depths

Here are two variations: #lang racket (require syntax/stx syntax/parse racket/syntax unstable/sequence) (syntax-parse #'(foo a b c) [(f:id s:id ...) (define foo-s* (stx-map (λ (x) (format-id #'f "foo-~a" x)) #'(s ...))) (with-syntax ([(foo-s ...) foo-s*]) #'(list foo-s ...))])

[racket-users] Lost in ellipsis depths

Hi everyone, I am working on what I consider a simple macro, but after reading all of the macro-related documentation twice, I still don't see how to do this. I want to transform (foo a b c) to (list foo-a foo-b foo-c) Here is my best attempt (using syntax/parse): (syntax-parse #'(foo a

Re: [racket-users] Lost in ellipsis depths

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:09 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > > Konrad Hinsen writes: > >> In fact, what I want is do something like map over the ellipsis pattern, >> but I haven't seen any example for doing this. > > Well, map actually works: > > (syntax-parse #'(foo a b