e:
>>
>> Unlike, e.g., Google?
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2023, at 12:11 PM, Adam Golding wrote:
>>
>> Yikes, how do we protest introducing a dependency on some corporation?
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 12:09, D. Ben Knoble wrote:
>>>
>>> You'll
You'll probably get more replies on Discourse. A short answer is to mention
Rhombus and to recommend looking at all the #langs on the package server
and in the docs.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 1:35:11 PM UTC-4 Adam Golding wrote:
> I am going to write a language called 'micronatrix' that is
Are you passing the `?` to `raco setup`? If so, I suspect your shell is
expanding that to a file or directory named `t` (which matches the glob
`?`), which is then used as a collection name.
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 12:43:27 PM UTC-4 infodeve...@gmail.com wrote:
> $ raco setup ?
>
Ah, I'm now seeing that with-quasi implicitly #`s the body; I believe with
syntax-parse, #:with, and #' + template vars + #` when needed you might be
ok.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> A shortcut to answering my question would be to tell me that
`with-quasisyntax` in the following paste already exists:
http://pasterack.org/pastes/48885
Without taking a detailed look, is there anything about with-quasisyntax
that with-syntax
Hi Norman,
> It's slightly unfortunate that Racket's
> start-up time make it slightly suboptimal as a command-line tool, but
> raco make helps with that.
With 8.0+/CS, even without make I've had a good experience. As you
say, setup or make makes things even faster, though.
If you weren't
> (exit (system*/exit-code "/usr/bin/vi" "filename"))
On a slightly unrelated note, if this for consumption by anyone other than
just you, I would use (getenv "EDITOR") (or VISUAL, if you prefer) rather
than hard-code the path to vi.
Best,
D. Ben Knoble
--
> Right, thank you for bringing that up. I should have mentioned that the #lang
> provides all of racket/base at the module level, so you can write normal
> Racket code (including `require`), and any imports at the module level would
> be available within the `program` body since it compiles
> The language is composed of 5 forms - help, flag, constraint, program,
> and run. With these 5 forms, you get all of the functionality of the
> built-in parse-command-line form, and with syntax that's much simpler. In
> fact, the nontrivial forms of the language simply use Racket's normal
No idea if this is what you're looking for, but I have a feeling it
wouldn't be terribly difficult to design a #lang where modules were
programs that, when run, output C# code (kind of like how scribble & pollen
can output HTML). Then you could have a language (w/ or w/o) macros that
gets run
Update on the project to host an archive of the Racket Slack: I have been
directed to some privacy issues with the current proof-of-concept. Until
these
issues are resolved, I have made the repository private and taken down the
site.
If you have a copy of the archive files or site, I must ask
In case you missed it/aren't on Slack:
The latest version of the Slack archive is up-and-running at
https://benknoble.github.io/racket-slack-archive/ (extends through roughly
2021-06-07).
The site is now built using a mix of
- Racket (data processing, mostly the json, hash, and unzip modules)
12 matches
Mail list logo
