Yet another totally off-topic question for you extremely smart people. Well,
it’s a language design question, so it’s not *too* off-topic.
I’m temporarily serving as my department’s scheduler (don’t ask). Currently,
the planning for the future schedule is done using an Excel spreadsheet. I try
There's also the Gregor package
(https://docs.racket-lang.org/gregor/index.html?q=gregor), which gives a much
more comprehensive interface to dates and times. In particular, Gregor allows
you to specify an "offset resolver" for these sorts of time-holes.
--
You received this message because yo
I'm looking into whether Racket's class/object system might be useful for
one of my projects, and I am stumped by an error when deserializing
objects. I've managed to produce the error a few different ways, but here
is a fairly minimal example:
> (define-serializable-class ok% object%
(inspec
BSL’s IA doesn’t even do definitions. That’s the whole point.
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> That seems to me to be an issue with navigation in the stepper (which
> I'd also love to have improved). But I wouldn't want to fix that by
> asking people to first copy
That seems to me to be an issue with navigation in the stepper (which
I'd also love to have improved). But I wouldn't want to fix that by
asking people to first copy-and-paste things to the interactions
window.
Sam
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I don't agree with this a
The old interface to the stepper could be preserved as a package.
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>
> I don't agree with this at all.
>
> Being forced to step through N check-expressions to get to the one you
> care about it is not a feature to be preserved.
>
> Robb
I don't agree with this at all.
Being forced to step through N check-expressions to get to the one you
care about it is not a feature to be preserved.
Robby
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> I wouldn't want to give up stepping the definitions window. When a
> studen
I wouldn't want to give up stepping the definitions window. When a
student has a question about how something they've written works, it's
usually written down in the definitions window, and I like being able
to just start stepping that. More generally, I just don't use the
interactions window that
The difference is that we can simplify the stepper if all we ever evaluate are
expressions in the IA. For example, the check-syntax problem could go away.
I suspect the simplified presentation would also become more accessible to most
students than the current evaluation of many little express
I was thinking that the button at the top works the same as now, and
that while it's open, everything goes to the stepper. That would work
well for me in class.
Sam
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> How do you open the stepper window in the first place? I think the s
How do you open the stepper window in the first place? I think the stepper
button for the DA could go away. That would simplify John’s life a bit. But if
you are saying
— the button in the IA opens the stepper window
— and the stepper works until closed
I am fine with that too.
> On
What if entering expressions at the interactions window _while the
stepper window is open_ caused them to be stepped?
Sam
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 4:44 PM, John Clements wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 4:44 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:20 PM, John Clements
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you probably want an interface that steps a single expression and
>>> then reverts to th
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:20 PM, John Clements wrote:
>>
>> I think you probably want an interface that steps a single expression and
>> then reverts to the standard mode.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> My preference would be to have a ‘b
Hello,
Thanks for all the help in the past! I'm still working on the handin-server and
getting it up and ready.
My students in their submission require an extra file called 'extra.rkt'. This
extra.rkt is about 20MB so I wouldn't really wanted it to be submitted with
each student in a multi-fil
That was more intended as a rant about things that drive me batty than
actual instruction -- I hope it didn't come across as patronizing.
No, not at all.
One of the things that surprised me the most is that prior to 1925,
astronomers kept timestamps of their observations where day started a
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:20 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
> I think you probably want an interface that steps a single expression and
> then reverts to the standard mode.
Exactly.
My preference would be to have a ‘button’ like feature at the top-right of the
IA for *SLs. By default, it is dis
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
> p.s. The only reason we cope with this at all is only because we don’t launch
> the stepper from the REPL. If we could set the Interactions Window to ‘RUN’
> or ‘STEP’ mode and then say
>
>> (f 10)
>
> and the stepper would po
p.s. The only reason we cope with this at all is only because we don’t launch
the stepper from the REPL. If we could set the Interactions Window to ‘RUN’ or
‘STEP’ mode and then say
> (f 10)
and the stepper would pop up to show this (in an appropriate, evaluated
definition context) we could
We need to differentiate between ‘semantics’ (calculations) and ‘rendering the
result’ (printing at the repl). I suspect that the reduction from (check-expect
7 7) to #true might be overkill for students, though not something they will
spend much time on. We could also say that (c-e 9 9) reduce
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> wrote:
>
> When teaching, I've personally found the reduction to #true confusing,
> and something that I can't explain to my students. So I'd prefer that
> it go away entirely, rather than happening more.
Before implementing this, one note:
I think that the reduction is good, but the #true appearing is bad. Right?
Robby
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> When teaching, I've personally found the reduction to #true confusing,
> and something that I can't explain to my students. So I'd prefer that
> it go aw
When teaching, I've personally found the reduction to #true confusing,
and something that I can't explain to my students. So I'd prefer that
it go away entirely, rather than happening more.
Sam
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Vincent St-Amour
wrote:
> Reducing to something, rather than disappea
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Vincent St-Amour
> wrote:
>
> Reducing to something, rather than disappearing, does sound like a good
> idea to me.
>
> On the other hand, one may expect something that reduces to `#true` to
> print `#true` to the interactions window, which isn't what happens.
Reducing to something, rather than disappearing, does sound like a good
idea to me.
On the other hand, one may expect something that reduces to `#true` to
print `#true` to the interactions window, which isn't what happens.
Vincent
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:33:19 -0500,
Racket Users wrote:
>
> I’
I’m trying to clean up some code near where Mike Sperber discovered a stepper
bug, and I accidentally made a change that I think actually improves the
stepper.
Specifically, in the past, the step from, e.g., (check-expect 13 13) to #true
was silently omitted. So, for instance, if you wrote th
Date rants are the best :)
http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time
Robby
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:06 PM, David Storrs wrote:
> That was more intended as a rant about things that drive me batty than
> actual instruction -- I hope it didn't come across
That was more intended as a rant about things that drive me batty than
actual instruction -- I hope it didn't come across as patronizing.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
> David,
>
> Yes, I deal with most of this at work, except daylight savings.
> (Timestamps in astronomi
David,
Yes, I deal with most of this at work, except daylight savings.
(Timestamps in astronomical observations are predominantly in UTC or
rarely TT/TDB, I never saw local time.)
Best regards,
Dmitry
On 10/20/2016 07:26 PM, David Storrs wrote:
Also be aware that once you start getting int
Also be aware that once you start getting into date math you need to deal
with:
*) Minutes that might have 61 seconds in them. Yes, hh:mm:60 is a real
time.
*) Hours that don't exist.
*) Hours that happen twice in the same day.
*) Februaries that have 28 or 29 days on a weird schedule. (If th
Matthew,
Did you timezone use daylight saving in 1996?
Oh, right.
I need UTC date and time; I assumed it is UTC since I passed #f for dst?
and 0 for time-zone-offset in (date). I missed the local-time? flag in
date->seconds, which is true by default.
So the corrected version of my code
Did you timezone use daylight saving in 1996?
In U.S. timezones, March (it used to be April) has a 1-hour hole due to
the switch to daylight saving time, where the clock skips forward from
1:59am to 3:00am. For example, 2:47:59am on March 13, 2016 really did
not exist in my timezone.
At Thu, 20 O
Hello,
The surprise of the day for me is date->seconds
rejecting a particular time on a particular date.
(date->seconds (date 59 47 2 31 3 1996 0 0 #f 0))
This should be 1996, March 31, 02:47:59 am, correct?
It reports the following error:
find-seconds: non-existent date
wanted: (59 47 2 3
Gah, I knew it'd be something simple.
Thanks for that, I assumed it'd return void.
Craig
--
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
write-bytes returns a number
http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/Byte_and_String_Output.html?q=write-bytes#%28def._%28%28quote._~23~25kernel%29._write-bytes%29%29
and response/output expects the function to return void?
http://docs.racket-lang.org/web-server/http.html?q=response%2Foutput#%28de
Hi guys,
I'm trying to serve a file using a restful API via dispatcher. The file is
being served but I'm also getting some funky contract errors that I don't
really understand.
The function is
(define (generate-zip-response zip-path)
(let* ([size-bs (string->bytes/utf-8 (number->strin
36 matches
Mail list logo