That's very cool. Thank you, Matthew.
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Matthew Butterick wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:17 AM, David Storrs wrote:
>
> I could, it's just extremely more verbose and therefore obfuscates what's
> actually going on as compared to the 'map' form.
>
>
> Why not turn
https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/1626
--
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 htt
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 3:47:15 PM UTC-8, Dan Liebgold wrote:
> Is there something like format-id that can create a keyword in a syntax
> transformer?
>
Searching the interwebs yielded this:
;; identifier->keyword : Identifer -> (Syntaxof Keyword)
(define (identifier->keyword id)
(d
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:17 AM, David Storrs wrote:
>
> I could, it's just extremely more verbose and therefore obfuscates what's
> actually going on as compared to the 'map' form.
Why not turn it into a macro that preserves your preferred notation:
#lang racket
(struct foo (a b c) #:transpar
Is there something like format-id that can create a keyword in a syntax
transformer?
Thanks,
Dan
--
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+u
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Daniel Prager wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:21 AM, John Clements
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Daniel Prager wrote:
> >
> > While we're at it, please allow negative arguments too, to allow for cases
> > such as
> >
> > (random -100 100
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:21 AM, John Clements
wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Daniel Prager
> wrote:
> >
> > While we're at it, please allow negative arguments too, to allow for
> cases such as
> >
> > (random -100 100)
>
> Well, that’s different; that’s actually changing the implementa
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 2:06 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>
> I think that the contract is overly specific on the 2 argument case.
> But on the 1 argument case, I don't think 0 makes sense:
>
> "When called with an integer argument k, returns a random exact
> integer in the range 0 to k-1."[k <- 0]
> =
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Daniel Prager wrote:
>
> While we're at it, please allow negative arguments too, to allow for cases
> such as
>
> (random -100 100)
Well, that’s different; that’s actually changing the implementation. I’m not
proposing that…
John
--
You received this messag
There's not currently a direct way to do what you want, as far as I
know. There's a relevant library in `scriblib/private/counter`, which
is used to implement the counters for `scriblib/footnote` and
`scriblib/figure`. As "private" in the module name suggests, however,
it was never turned into some
Hi Alex,
It is a bit confusing. There's a lot of history to the message.
It used to be that rackunit only had the test-suites, test-cases, and
the checks. It tries very hard to NOT count the checks as "tests".
Later, the checks were exposed so you didn't have to but them in
test-suites and test-c
11 matches
Mail list logo