[racket-users] After font change, bounding box too high in Redex picts

Attached are two screenshots of part of a model I've extracted from Redex. The first is after changing the default fonts. As you can see, there is a *lot* of vertical whitespace around each judgment form clause and where clause. In particular, the top of the bounding box seems too high. The

[racket-users] Re: trying to use dump-memory-stats

I'd like to add that the 32bit version of Racket 6.5 works fine and displays actual numbers. It seems that this would be a bug in the 64 bit version? Alex. On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:24:42 PM UTC+8, Alex Harsanyi wrote: > I'm trying to use dump-memory-stats to find out where my application

[racket-users] Re: auto-defining variables mentioned in a program

Erm, set-box! not box-set! My bad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit

[racket-users] Re: auto-defining variables mentioned in a program

#%top provides fallback behavior at compile time, but only in expression positions. I think what you want can be done by doing this: - Under the hood, make variables immutable and have their values be boxes. - Have (set! x:id expr) and (define x:id expr) both expand to (box-set! x expr). This

Re: [racket-users] auto-defining variables mentioned in a program

On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Jack Firth wrote: > > I think you can do this by having your language provide it's own #%top syntax > that defines what to do with unknown variables. IIUC `#%top` can only provide fallback behavior at runtime, right? AFAICT it doesn't help

[racket-users] Re: auto-defining variables mentioned in a program

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 10:06:25 AM UTC-7, Matthew Butterick wrote: > I have a solution to this problem — is it legit, or is there some slick > Rackety technique I'm missing? > > I'm making a toy #lang interpreter for Basic, which allows variables to be > created with an assignment

Re: [racket-users] Possible bug in SEwPR, Exercise 15.1

> On the other hand, it would be a real stress test. So if you’re up to > it, try to use the binding mechanism and post on the list how you’re > doing. — Matthias That's my plan as soon as I finish reading SEwPR. I'll let you know how it goes. Thanks a lot to you all for all the kind advice.

Re: [racket-users] Possible bug in SEwPR, Exercise 15.1

On the other hand, it would be a real stress test. So if you’re up to it, try to use the binding mechanism and post on the list how you’re doing. — Matthias > On Jun 2, 2016, at 7:49 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > > It is designed for lexical scope, yes. If you

[racket-users] trying to use dump-memory-stats

I'm trying to use dump-memory-stats to find out where my application uses its memory, unfortunately, it does not seem to print out any usefull info. When calling it with no arguments I get the value "???64d" for everything: Begin Dump Begin Racket3m :???64d???64d :

[racket-users] Re: slideshow for non-technical presentations

Asumu Takikawa writes: > One thing that's not portable is the fonts that you use. You will > probably have to install the same fonts or ensure that you only > use fonts that are available on both machines. Hmm…that might be problematic considering I do not have any clue which

[racket-users] Re: slideshow for non-technical presentations

Matthias Felleisen writes: >> is it safe to prepare it on Linux and ’execute’ under Linux >> by putting the whole environment on USB stick? > > > Yes. Ahh, I wanted to ask "to prepare under Linux" and "execute under Windows". :-( > (I have no experience w/ non-technical

Re: [racket-users] Possible bug in SEwPR, Exercise 15.1

It is designed for lexical scope, yes. If you have a language with it's own interesting, non-standard notion of scope, you will probably have to (and, indeed, want to) model it explicitly. Robby On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Leandro Facchinetti wrote: >> Woah, cool! >> >>

Re: [racket-users] Possible bug in SEwPR, Exercise 15.1

> Woah, cool! > > Since the book was written, we have added support for binding > specifications to Redex. It's documentation is still in the process of > being improved, but you might have some interest in checking it out > (it is the part after #:binding-forms). I read the documentation and