tl;dr: You need to use an ellipsis, so your pattern should be ((~between
x:integer 3 3) ...). A (much) more detailed explanation of why follows.
~between is an ellipsis-head pattern. The most common ellipsis-head pattern,
~optional, also works as a plain head pattern, but ~between does not.
This seems like it should be simple but I've never been able to figure out
how to do this. What I've been doing instead is this:
(x:integer ...+) to match two or more integers.
(x:integer y:integer ...+) to match three or more.
And so on.
I'm at a point now where I need to build patterns
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:42 AM Zelphir Kaltstahl <
zelphirkaltst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> … If that works for arbitrary serializable-lambda with only serializable
> parts, I could continue my process pool project.
>
Yes, this would work for any value created by `serial-lambda`.
> The only issue
Hello,
thanks everyone for helping me putting this into a reasonable shape.
My short-term plans with futures-sort are currently to check how various
construct could be improved (or'ing of touched futures is really just a
quick hack for example). Also I'd like to investigate why it didn't work
Hi!
Hmmm, that code example looks simple enough. If that works for arbitrary
serializable-lambda with only serializable parts, I could continue my
process pool project. The only issue would then be, that any user of it
would have to know in advance, that they cannot define their lambdas as
usual,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:15:14 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
>The Racket community, and even more so the design of Racket
>concurrency APIs, is very strongly influenced by the academic side of
>Racket. As far as I can tell, structured concurrency is fairly close
>to what is traditionally called
6 matches
Mail list logo
