Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

On 26/11/2017 16:42, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote: I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors; normally a combination of familiarity (hence speed) with a lot of powerful features and non-transportable customisation. A third big reason is generality. The main

Re: [racket-users] misterious empty line

My guess is that "(define" does something special to figure out where to insert newlines in the rendered document. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jos Koot wrote: > My code: > > #lang scribble/manual > > @(require > scribble/core > scribble/eval > racket >

Re: [racket-users] DrRacket et al not starting in Sierra (10.12)?

What you describe is indeed different from what I experience and I followed the exact same steps that you listed. It may perhaps be due to something that is different in my system settings. It is also strange because the behavior that you describe with the dialog box is also what I experience

Re: [racket-users] unexpected behavior of parametric polymorphism in Typed Racket

Returning to this after a long delay... On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:34:05PM -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > (Context: I only actually intend to use `store' with a single type, but I > > want to define that type in a separate module. Since the type's definition > > refers to `addr', I made

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

> On Nov 26, 2017, at 11:27 AM, 'Royall Spence' via users-redirect > wrote: > > DrRacket actually does the things it claims to do and isn't a broken mess. Yes, it is an amazing tool. I occasionally escape to Emacs for tasks that I can’t do easily in Dr (e.g.

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 03:42:14PM +, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote: > Hi, > > I’ve noticed some list members use other editors or IDE’s. > > I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors; > normally a combination of familiarity (hence speed) with a lot of powerful >

[racket-users] Re: Alternatives to DrRacket

I use Neovim and I'm working on a Racket client for it: https://gitlab.com/HiPhish/neovim.rkt One of the cool features Neovim has over Vim is that it provides an API for remote processes; a client application can connect to the editor and they can communicate with each other. What that means in

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

Hi Stephen, > I’ve noticed some list members use other editors or IDE’s. > > I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors; > normally a combination of familiarity (hence speed) with a lot of powerful > features and non-transportable customisation. > > Putting

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

/base` (or whatever Scheme-like lang), so, when reading code, you know whether some identifier you don't recognize JUST CHANGED ALL THE RULES.  See black bold variable names in screenshot: http://www.neilvandyke.org/temporary/20171126-quack.png * Visually distinguish identifiers that define top

Re: [racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

One thing I appreciate about racket-mode in emacs is the more detailed syntax highlighting. I've attached two screenshots of the same code in emacs and DrRacket. I think what's happening here is that racket-mode highlights `for-clause` names and function applications (sometimes?) while DrRacket

[racket-users] Alternatives to DrRacket

Hi, I’ve noticed some list members use other editors or IDE’s. I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors; normally a combination of familiarity (hence speed) with a lot of powerful features and non-transportable customisation. Putting stickiness factors aside,