Re: [racket-users] Re: with-continuation-marks in errortrace

2020-07-26 Thread Shu-Hung You
By changing (fact 5) to (* 2 (fact 5)), the stack information becomes /: division by zero errortrace...: /Volumes/ramdisk/fact.rkt:6:17: (/ 1 0) /Volumes/ramdisk/fact.rkt:7:12: (* (loop (sub1 n)) n) /Volumes/ramdisk/fact.rkt:7:12: (* (loop (sub1 n)) n)

[racket-users] Re: with-continuation-marks in errortrace

2020-07-26 Thread Sorawee Porncharoenwase
(By "integrating" with the new strategy, I meant having two keys: one for the new strategy and one for the old strategy. I can see that the first entry of the old strategy is useful, and it's missing in the new strategy). On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 8:21 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase <

[racket-users] with-continuation-marks in errortrace

2020-07-26 Thread Sorawee Porncharoenwase
Hi everyone, I have a question about the implementation of errortrace. Consider the classic factorial program, except that the base case is buggy: (define (fact m) (let loop ([n m]) (cond [(zero? n) (/ 1 0)] [else (* (loop (sub1 n)) n)]))) (fact 5) Running this program with

Re: [racket-users] Does Racket interpreter exist?

2020-07-26 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Hi, Racket BC (the non-Chez version) does use an interpreter. The pipeline in Racket BC is source code => expanded code => compiled bytecode => interpreter or source code => expanded code => compiled bytecode => JIT compiler => machine code You can turn off the JIT compiler with the

[racket-users] Does Racket interpreter exist?

2020-07-26 Thread zeRusski
Hi all. I wonder if such a thing exist or even possible? Question triggered by the trade off between "compile slowly now to run fast later" vs "start fast". Racket like other modern(ish) Scheme derivatives appear to have settled on being in the former camp. Is there anything in the language