[racket-users] Re: Racket PPA updated for 6.8

在 2017年1月31日星期二 UTC+8上午12:37:14，asumu写道： > Hi all, > > The Racket PPA for Ubuntu has been updated to v6.8: > > https://launchpad.net/~plt/+archive/ubuntu/racket > > I'm not sure why, but v6.8 didn't build correctly for precise and trusty so > for > now the PPA just supports xenial, yakkety,

Re: [racket-users] Racket PPA updated for 6.8

On 2017-01-30 11:36:41 -0500, Asumu Takikawa wrote: > I'm not sure why, but v6.8 didn't build correctly for precise and trusty so > for > now the PPA just supports xenial, yakkety, and zesty. Update: the precise and trusty builds for v6.8 should now work. (thanks to Andrew Kent for the fix) I

Re: [racket-users] Re: Package layout in docs

Hello. This is one of the culture shocks that a new Racketeer would face, and so was I. But this statement makes it clear to me: Racket is an operating system that pretend to a programming language; Yes, it may totally be a kind of over reading here. Say, I do not care if a manual page is the

Re: [racket-users] Re: Package layout in docs

I was also going to suggest the ring system as a way of giving more information without imposing an unnecessary artificial distinction. In general I'm enthusiastic about the benefits of not having a sharp dividing line, but it would be useful to show more clearly in the documentation which

[racket-users] Re: Package layout in docs

Rather than splitting "core packages" from "community packages", what if we used the package ring system? [1] We could establish a way for the Racket community to bless packages with "ring zero" status, then provide a --catalog argument to Scribble to lookup ring information in when deciding

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

I agree that in the TOC of the docs it would probably be better to separate third party packages, maybe simply as a dedicated section or add '(contributed package)' next to it. On 30 Jan 2017 9:13 pm, "Matthew Butterick" wrote: On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Leif Andersen

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

Putting the logo in the corner or line under the title solves only half of the problem, IMHO. Yes, you can determine which packages are core and which are community, however you still can't differentiate at a glance which is which. Although it is an improvement, it is still a pain in practice

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

So, I really don't care how it work. Logo is fine, seperate website is fine. Checkboxes that lets users say what packages come in are fine. Yelp reviews are fine (although if we go down that route can we also add Edit buttons. ;) ) My only concern is that at the moment, anyone can publish

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

Le lundi 30 janvier 2017 22:13:57 UTC+1, Matthew Butterick a écrit : > Recently we added a Racket logo to the upper right of the public doc pages. > We could do something where this logo changed depending on whether the > package belonged to core or community or whatever. Then we wouldn't need

Re: [racket-users] DrRacket debugger

It isn't an issue I know about. I don't see that with this simple program: #lang racket (let loop () (loop)) Do you? Robby On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Dan Liebgold wrote: > I'm having trouble with the debugger in DrRacket: I'll start it and the > debugger

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Leif Andersen wrote: > > I don't think that the solution is to make core packages first class, and > community ones second class. That looses the spirit of what we're going for > here. But maybe we could have in our documentation a way

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

> An alternative approach which probably takes less effort is to just have two > documentation pages. One for core packages, and one for community packages. > Obviously we should still make 3rd party packages feel like first class build > in stuff, but if we just host them at a different URL,

[racket-users] DrRacket debugger

I'm having trouble with the debugger in DrRacket: I'll start it and the debugger buttons available at the top will stay "Go" and "Step" even as my program is clearly running (even stuck in a loop). Is this a known issue? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

FWIW, I have to support Ethan here. (At least a little bit). I really how user installed packages (and collections) in Racket feel like first class citizens. Its very nice, both that its rewarding when I make a new package, but also in terms of searching for documentation and whatnot. However,

Re: [racket-users] link: bad variable linkage

Sorry I missed this. Apparently I'm several months behind on the racket list. The problem does seem fixed however. Thank you! Jon On 10/23/2016 11:34 AM, Laurent wrote: As of now, I haven't experienced any more problem of this sort since then. Admittedly I haven't tried hard either to

Re: [racket-users] Arrays performance in untyped Racket

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:20:36 PM UTC+1, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > We have reduced this overhead somewhat, but it's still likely to be > prohibitive in many cases. > > I think that "We are working on it" may need to be interpreted on an > academic time scale in this case. > > Sam Ok,

Re: [racket-users] Arrays performance in untyped Racket

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Greg Trzeciak wrote: > I need to use Arrays/Matrix from untyped Racket but then I noticed the > following in the docs (https://docs.racket-lang.org/math/array.html): > > "Performance Warning: Indexing the elements of arrays created in untyped

[racket-users] Arrays performance in untyped Racket

I need to use Arrays/Matrix from untyped Racket but then I noticed the following in the docs (https://docs.racket-lang.org/math/array.html): "Performance Warning: Indexing the elements of arrays created in untyped Racket is currently 25-50 times slower than doing the same in Typed Racket, due