[racket-users] Re: HTDP 2ed Learning resources and solutions to exercises
I would recommend following the free course on edx: "how to code simple data" https://learning.edx.org/course/course-v1:UBCx+HtC1x+2T2017/home , as it takes many things from the book and presents them in a more digestible and interactive manner. On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:31:47 AM UTC-8 acate...@gmail.com wrote: > Its one of my goals in 2022 to teach myself programming. To kick this goal > off early, I have decided to pick up HTDP 2e from Amazon. After a cursory > glance through the book and working through a few problems. I notice that > there are no provided solution/ answer to the exercises in the book. Which > means that there is no way to check my solutions against the proper > recommended way to solve the exercises. As a result, I have no idea if I > am actual on the right track in this learning process. Where can I find > the solutions to the exercises in HTDP? If there are no solutions what > book would you recommend that would be suited for a self-learner? > > > > Thanks > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/11b2eb29-d223-499c-a53d-c6b0b01f3911n%40googlegroups.com.
[racket-users] Paper from my first year in graduate school - Racket Simulation
Hey, all the simulations for my paper (published in Bio-inspired EAI International Conference 2016) back then when I was a first year graduate student are in Racket ! This morning I discover that it has 624 downloads and counting. I am so proud of my graduate time <3 https://eudl.eu/doi/10.4108/eai.3-12-2015.2262403 Have fun and keep inspiring <3 regards, -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/c4b31aac-8ad9-4a14-8d34-b46b71f4a5dfn%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex
Wow!, that was fast! No need to thank, I'm just using your awesome tool to perform random testing. Thanks, Mallku El martes, 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 18:22:09 UTC-3, Robby Findler escribió: > There was a bug in the matcher; I've pushed a fix. > > With that fix, you'll get > > (list > (match > (list >(bind 'A '(hole (hole hole))) >(bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)) > > as the result. That's different than the matcher because the pattern `A` > is really shorthand for something like `(name A (nt A))`, where the `name` > part introduces the name and the `nt` pattern matching construct matches > only non-terminals without binding a name. > > Thanks for finding the bug! > > Robby > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:50 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa wrote: > >> Just to clarify, I understand that the several binds of x correspond to >> the several patterns name in the productions, and the pattern against with >> we are matching, but I would have expected for the firsts to be discarded, >> or, if still considered in the resulting match for some reason, that I >> don't >> know, I would have expected for the application of the constraint of >> names, >> that would have rendered #f the match. >> >> thanks!, >> Mallku >> >> El martes, 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 17:38:28 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto >> Soldevila Raffa escribió: >> >>> Hi to everyone!, >>> I'm trying to test the mechanization of Redex's semantics done in [1], >>> against the present version of racket, 8.3. I'm using the >>> random-match-test.rkt >>> >>> module from [1] to generate random grammars, patterns and terms, and to >>> test them >>> using the proposed mechanization of Redex in [1] and the actual >>> implementation of >>> it, in racket 8.3. >>> >>> In doing it, I've found an example that I cannot explain in terms of my >>> understanding >>> of the behavior of the name pattern: >>> >>> (define-language L [A (name x B)] >>>[B (hole (name x (hole hole)))]) >>> >>> (redex-match L (name x A) >>>(term (hole (hole hole >>> >>> The result of the previous match is: >>> >>> (list (match (list >>> (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole))) >>> (bind 'x '(hole hole)) >>> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))) >>> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)) >>> >>> Which shows that 'x' is bound to different, non-equivalent, terms. While >>> I've never used the pattern name explicitly in such a way, while >>> defining >>> grammars, I'm still curious about what is going on here. Even more, I >>> would >>> have thought that the following match would return the same result as the >>> previous: >>> >>> (redex-match L (name x (name x B)) >>>(term (hole (hole hole >>> >>> where I just replaced the non-term A by the rhs of its only production, >>> but >>> what I obtain is: >>> >>> #f >>> >>> As a side note, the mechanization of Redex in [1] just returns something >>> equivalent to: >>> >>> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))) >>> >>> In both cases. Does anyone understand the behavior of the shown example >>> under racket 8.3? >>> >>> Thanks in advance!, >>> Mallku >>> >>> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 >>> El jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2021 a las 13:20:31 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto >>> Soldevila Raffa escribió: >>> Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it. Regards, Mallku El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby Findler escribió: > I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of > any other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. > (Of > course, there may be work I'm not aware of.) > > The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the > syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era, > but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying > algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened. > > Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very > interested to hear more :) > > Robby > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa wrote: > >> I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that >> might be specific of Redex? >> >> I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on >> formal >> semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know >> if the >> already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's >> semantics of >> Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, >> together >> with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to >> generate >> random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the >> mechanized model is capabl
Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex
There was a bug in the matcher; I've pushed a fix. With that fix, you'll get (list (match (list (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole))) (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)) as the result. That's different than the matcher because the pattern `A` is really shorthand for something like `(name A (nt A))`, where the `name` part introduces the name and the `nt` pattern matching construct matches only non-terminals without binding a name. Thanks for finding the bug! Robby On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:50 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa < mallkuerne...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to clarify, I understand that the several binds of x correspond to > the several patterns name in the productions, and the pattern against with > we are matching, but I would have expected for the firsts to be discarded, > or, if still considered in the resulting match for some reason, that I > don't > know, I would have expected for the application of the constraint of > names, > that would have rendered #f the match. > > thanks!, > Mallku > > El martes, 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 17:38:28 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto > Soldevila Raffa escribió: > >> Hi to everyone!, >> I'm trying to test the mechanization of Redex's semantics done in [1], >> against the present version of racket, 8.3. I'm using the >> random-match-test.rkt >> >> module from [1] to generate random grammars, patterns and terms, and to >> test them >> using the proposed mechanization of Redex in [1] and the actual >> implementation of >> it, in racket 8.3. >> >> In doing it, I've found an example that I cannot explain in terms of my >> understanding >> of the behavior of the name pattern: >> >> (define-language L [A (name x B)] >>[B (hole (name x (hole hole)))]) >> >> (redex-match L (name x A) >>(term (hole (hole hole >> >> The result of the previous match is: >> >> (list (match (list >> (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole))) >> (bind 'x '(hole hole)) >> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))) >> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)) >> >> Which shows that 'x' is bound to different, non-equivalent, terms. While >> I've never used the pattern name explicitly in such a way, while defining >> grammars, I'm still curious about what is going on here. Even more, I >> would >> have thought that the following match would return the same result as the >> previous: >> >> (redex-match L (name x (name x B)) >>(term (hole (hole hole >> >> where I just replaced the non-term A by the rhs of its only production, >> but >> what I obtain is: >> >> #f >> >> As a side note, the mechanization of Redex in [1] just returns something >> equivalent to: >> >> (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))) >> >> In both cases. Does anyone understand the behavior of the shown example >> under racket 8.3? >> >> Thanks in advance!, >> Mallku >> >> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 >> El jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2021 a las 13:20:31 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto >> Soldevila Raffa escribió: >> >>> Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mallku >>> >>> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby Findler >>> escribió: >>> I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of any other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. (Of course, there may be work I'm not aware of.) The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era, but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened. Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very interested to hear more :) Robby On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa < mallku...@gmail.com> wrote: > I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that > might be specific of Redex? > > I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on > formal > semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if > the > already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's > semantics of > Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, > together > with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to > generate > random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the > mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is > what > I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the > mechanization > on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are > ill-formed > (e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I > could > provide more deta
Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex
Just to clarify, I understand that the several binds of x correspond to the several patterns name in the productions, and the pattern against with we are matching, but I would have expected for the firsts to be discarded, or, if still considered in the resulting match for some reason, that I don't know, I would have expected for the application of the constraint of names, that would have rendered #f the match. thanks!, Mallku El martes, 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 17:38:28 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa escribió: > Hi to everyone!, > I'm trying to test the mechanization of Redex's semantics done in [1], > against the present version of racket, 8.3. I'm using the > random-match-test.rkt > > module from [1] to generate random grammars, patterns and terms, and to > test them > using the proposed mechanization of Redex in [1] and the actual > implementation of > it, in racket 8.3. > > In doing it, I've found an example that I cannot explain in terms of my > understanding > of the behavior of the name pattern: > > (define-language L [A (name x B)] >[B (hole (name x (hole hole)))]) > > (redex-match L (name x A) >(term (hole (hole hole > > The result of the previous match is: > > (list (match (list > (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole))) > (bind 'x '(hole hole)) > (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))) > (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)) > > Which shows that 'x' is bound to different, non-equivalent, terms. While > I've never used the pattern name explicitly in such a way, while defining > grammars, I'm still curious about what is going on here. Even more, I would > have thought that the following match would return the same result as the > previous: > > (redex-match L (name x (name x B)) >(term (hole (hole hole > > where I just replaced the non-term A by the rhs of its only production, but > what I obtain is: > > #f > > As a side note, the mechanization of Redex in [1] just returns something > equivalent to: > > (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))) > > In both cases. Does anyone understand the behavior of the shown example > under racket 8.3? > > Thanks in advance!, > Mallku > > [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 > El jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2021 a las 13:20:31 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto > Soldevila Raffa escribió: > >> Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it. >> >> Regards, >> Mallku >> >> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby Findler >> escribió: >> >>> I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of >>> any other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. (Of >>> course, there may be work I'm not aware of.) >>> >>> The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the >>> syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era, >>> but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying >>> algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened. >>> >>> Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very interested >>> to hear more :) >>> >>> Robby >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa < >>> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that might be specific of Redex? I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on formal semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if the already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's semantics of Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, together with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to generate random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is what I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the mechanization on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are ill-formed (e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I could provide more details about the error, but I don't know if it is of interest, it's a mechanization written for the Redex version that comes with Racket 5.* or something like that. Thanks!, Mallku [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 21:03:44 UTC-3, Robby Findler escribió: > I think that might be it specifically about redex, I am sorry to say. > > Robby > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa < > mallku...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi community!, >> I'm interested in understanding the semantics of PLT
Re: [racket-users] Formal semantics of PLT Redex
Hi to everyone!, I'm trying to test the mechanization of Redex's semantics done in [1], against the present version of racket, 8.3. I'm using the random-match-test.rkt module from [1] to generate random grammars, patterns and terms, and to test them using the proposed mechanization of Redex in [1] and the actual implementation of it, in racket 8.3. In doing it, I've found an example that I cannot explain in terms of my understanding of the behavior of the name pattern: (define-language L [A (name x B)] [B (hole (name x (hole hole)))]) (redex-match L (name x A) (term (hole (hole hole The result of the previous match is: (list (match (list (bind 'A '(hole (hole hole))) (bind 'x '(hole hole)) (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))) (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole)) Which shows that 'x' is bound to different, non-equivalent, terms. While I've never used the pattern name explicitly in such a way, while defining grammars, I'm still curious about what is going on here. Even more, I would have thought that the following match would return the same result as the previous: (redex-match L (name x (name x B)) (term (hole (hole hole where I just replaced the non-term A by the rhs of its only production, but what I obtain is: #f As a side note, the mechanization of Redex in [1] just returns something equivalent to: (bind 'x '(hole (hole hole))) In both cases. Does anyone understand the behavior of the shown example under racket 8.3? Thanks in advance!, Mallku [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 El jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2021 a las 13:20:31 UTC-3, Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa escribió: > Thanks a lot for the info! If I found any mismatches, I'll report it. > > Regards, > Mallku > > El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 23:32:25 UTC-3, Robby Findler > escribió: > >> I'm sorry, my sentence was ambiguous! I'm saying that I don't know of any >> other work that is specifically focused on the semantics of Redex. (Of >> course, there may be work I'm not aware of.) >> >> The paper is still a good match, I believe, yes. You're right that the >> syntactic checks for well-formed grammars have tightened since that era, >> but if the program is valid, then I think it should match; the underlying >> algorithms have not changed, only bug fixes have happened. >> >> Of course, if you find that this isn't the case, I'd be very interested >> to hear more :) >> >> Robby >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:34 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa < >> mallku...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I beg your pardon!, I'm not understanding the answer, what is it that >>> might be specific of Redex? >>> >>> I suspect that the answer is that there isn't some recent work on formal >>> semantics specifically about Redex. In that case, does anybody know if >>> the >>> already mentioned paper [1] is still a good match for today's semantics >>> of >>> Redex? The paper provides a mechanization of the model in Redex, >>> together >>> with some tools to test it. Of interest is a tool that asks Redex to >>> generate >>> random patterns and terms that match against them, and tests if the >>> mechanized model is capable of reproducing the matching (or that is what >>> I suspect that the tests are doing :P ). It was possible to run the >>> mechanization >>> on a recent version of Redex, but the generated patterns are ill-formed >>> (e.g., in-hole p1 p2, where p1 contains more than 1 hole). Of course I >>> could >>> provide more details about the error, but I don't know if it is of >>> interest, it's >>> a mechanization written for the Redex version that comes with Racket 5.* >>> or something like that. >>> >>> Thanks!, >>> Mallku >>> >>> >>> [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 >>> >>> El miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2021 a las 21:03:44 UTC-3, Robby Findler >>> escribió: >>> I think that might be it specifically about redex, I am sorry to say. Robby On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mallku Ernesto Soldevila Raffa < mallku...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi community!, > I'm interested in understanding the semantics of PLT Redex, since we > are working on a tool > to translate fragments of Redex models to Coq. At the moment, we just > have a > mechanization in Coq of the semantics proposed in a ~10 years old > paper [1]. Does > anybody know if there is an updated work on formal semantics of Redex? > > Thanks in advance!, > Mallku > > [1] : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-25318-8_27 > > -- > 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...@googlegroups.com. > To view t
Re: [racket-users] [baseball-cap with `standard-fish`]
The no context email left me trying to decrypt the hidden meaning 😂 . Thought I was being phished for a second. Here is from discourse: “”“ spdegabrielle: [baseball-cap by Justin Zamora] Made with Racket by @JustinZed “”” > > > > Image credit at > https://racket.discourse.group/t/baseball-cap-with-standard-fish/443?u=spdegabrielle > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/0CE5FA35-8A97-4517-A4C1-BEB46E000213%40nan.sh.
[racket-users] **Creative Racket Competition 2022**
**Creative Racket Competition 2022** January 1, 2022 → February 28, 2022 ***Get creative with Racket this winter! Win stickers!*** Entries can be... pictures, animations, interactive, sound or music or something else? ...are all acceptable. * You can enter as many times as you like * Entries need to be runnable by other racketeers. * Your entry must be created with Racket or a Racket language including RacketScript. (even your own) See https://github.com/standard-fish/creative-racket-2022/blob/master/TOOLS.md for some suggestions but you can use anything you like. It is easy to enter: https://github.com/standard-fish/creative-racket-2022/issues/new?assignees=spdegabrielle&labels=&template=submit-competition-entry.md&title=%5BENTRY+TITLE%5D (If you can't use github let us know) Discussion on Racket Discourse https://racket.discourse.group/tag/creative-racket , Discord https://discord.gg/6Zq8sH5 or Slack https://racket-slack.herokuapp.com/ Jens Axel & Stephen https://github.com/standard-fish/creative-racket-2022 **Prizes** Winners will receive an exclusive badge on their GitHub profile and laptop stickers. There will be a range of categories to reflect the diversity of entries. Special categories will include * Racket mascot - winner will be chosen by peoples choice vote. * Racket meme Note: Not an official Racket competition. We not a members of the Racket team, nor are we doing this on their behalf. -- -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAGHj7-L3kp8yAQfnd5h9kUmNaBqqBXHOMb%3Dt%2Bjc1fG14LDs0MQ%40mail.gmail.com.
