Re: [racket-users] crash in nightly build

At Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:56:21 +0300, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > Oops, it just crashed again, 5+ hours of running. > I will re-run in under gdb. There is no guarantee, though, > that it will crash this time. > > By the way, I input "handle SIGSEGV nostop noprint" into gdb prior > to running, to get rid

[racket-users] Re: Formatting Function

2015年10月13日火曜日 3時28分13秒 UTC+9 George Neuner: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:28:56 -0400, Deren Dohoda > wrote: > > >Probably racket/format is what you need to look at. > >http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/strings.html#%28mod-path._racket%2Fformat%29 > > > Or SRFI 48: >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote: > I don't have a very strong opinion, it seems like convenient syntax, but > half of what draws me to stick with lisps is the low amount of syntax. > Pound-colon has a strong line noise quality to it which colons lack,

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I don't have a very strong opinion, it seems like convenient syntax, but half of what draws me to stick with lisps is the low amount of syntax. Pound-colon has a strong line noise quality to it which colons lack, I admit. But they also have an explicit feel which colons lack. Inclusion or

Fortran (Was: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords)

Regarding Fortran, about 3 weeks ago, I looked into implementing a `#lang fortran77` or `#lang fortran90`. Functionality-wise, it looks doable; speed-wise, not so great. I have no further need for this, but it's an interesting practical/hobby project someone might want to pursue. (For easy

[racket-users] Question about template

I am little confuse about template, my understanding is that template can only put into comment, template is not real code, am i right? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

Re: [racket-users] Defining a symbol breaks symbols?

Sorry it took so long, but I just finished making a meta-language that adds quote, quasiquote, etc. as hygienic reader extensions. https://github.com/AlexKnauth/hygienic-quote-lang So now, you can write #lang hygienic-quote racket To make

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:18:22PM -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: ... ... > A common reason for fragmentation is the creation and use of function > libraries. For example, a Fortran programmer in the field of physical > simulations used different function libraries than one in commercial >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

Hendrik Boom wrote on 10/15/2015 01:25 PM: I'd like to ask: What do the Scheme standards say about this? What do Lisp standards say about this? I don't know the answers to these questons, though maybe I should, and Racket is not a standard Scheme, but I think these answers should at least

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: > > (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f > > IIRC the common lisp keywords you admire are symbols. I think that the > proposed syntax confuses symbols and

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > BTW, in response to an earlier comment regarding fragmentation, I think that > `#lang foo-reader racket` and `#lang foo-replacing-racket-reader` are > equivalent in immediate fragmentation effect. What's more

Re: [racket-users] crash in nightly build

I've just stumbled across a subtle and difficult-to-provoke GC bug while testing new changes to the GC. The problem was introduced in commit 50df879e or so (September 10), so I think the timing of the change is consistent with your problem. For this bug to be relevant, your program would need to

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

In case I'm being to oblique, I'm trying to point out that: (equal? '#:test ':test) ; -> #f which means that the proposal will certainly break things. -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:48:17AM +0200, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Alex Knauth wrote on 10/14/2015 04:37 PM: > >> > >> You can use > >> #lang colon-kw racket > >> for :kw syntax, and > >> #lang kw-colon racket >

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f IIRC the common lisp keywords you admire are symbols. I think that the proposed syntax confuses symbols and keywords, which are distinct types. -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On 10/15/2015 03:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: > > (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f err... (symbol? '#:test) ; -> #f -- Anthony Carrico -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users"

Re: [racket-users] racket users fight for their right to colon keywords

On 10/15/2015 03:39 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > On 10/15/2015 03:37 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: >> I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but keep in mind that: >> >> (symbol? #'test) ; -> #f > > err... (symbol? '#:test) ; -> #f > Yes. I found this in the Common Lisp Hyperspec: