Hi Brendan,
>
> I'm wondering if you tried the here string syntax for your use case,
> which other than the fact that it requires a couple of newlines seems
> similar in vein to what you were going for (e.g. it doesn't escape
> anything)?
--
You received this message because
I wrote a little Racket meta-language that adds a dispatch macro to the
readtable for typing string literals without escape characters. You start with
two or more #'s followed by any non-# character, then the actual string
content, then end with the same non-# character and the same number of
call depth.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:09:10 PM UTC-4, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Brendan,
>
> you’re correct in attributing the idea that the proper implementation of tail
> calls is far less important to the Scheme and Racket community. Dybvig
> expressed this idea first i
Good points: It wasn't strictly true to say that you can make non-tail calls
"without fear." Rather, your memory for continuation frames is shared with, and
just as large as, any other kind of data.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users"
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:52 PM 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> <racket...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 2017, at 3:37 PM, brendan <bre...@cannells.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Scheme implementations are required to have pr
Scheme implementations are required to have proper tail recursion. Racket goes
further and lets the programmer make recursive calls from any position without
fear because, to paraphrase Dr. Flatt, it's the 21st century and stack
overflows should not be a thing. My questions are: Is there a name
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 5:25:27 PM UTC-4, Alex Knauth wrote:
> It's that the implicit `#%app` within the definition of the `-encoding` macro
> is within the scope of the definition, not the place where it's used.
Okay, I think I may get it. I knew starting out that there could be a problem
I'm writing a #lang using a custom #%app that transforms all multi-argument
applications into nested unary applications. I've run into trouble where a
macro (written in standard Racket but to be used in the #lang) is
malfunctioning because when the expander processes the macro's output, it uses
Outstanding, thank you.
--
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.
For more options, visit
I would like to bind a key to toggle background expansion, but I can't find an
applicable command in the API docs. Is there any way to do this? Thanks for
your help.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this
Ah, of course, I forgot all about that. I read that paper a while back but I
never felt that I really "got" it; it was easy to see the problems that were
being solved, but hard to see that the given solutions were correct. I'll have
to go through it again now that I've used the system a little
I've realized that technically speaking my post did not actually ask a
question, so: Why does the expression in the example above evaluate to true?
After all, "car" evaluates to "#" whereas "(let ([car 8]) car)"
evaluates to "8". It sure seems like the two identifiers have different
bindings.
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here. In the Guide, introducing syntax
objects, it says:
"Most notably, free-identifier=? determines whether two identifiers refer to
the same binding:
...
(free-identifier=? #'car (let ([car 8])
#'car))
The last example
Ah! Of course. I never would have thought of that. Thank you.
--
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.
For
Today I wrote and then fixed a bug that caused my program to enter an infinite
loop for reasons I don't understand.
The program is the output display formatting for a prototype relational lambda
calculus interpreter. First I took my two structs, Lam and App (using symbols
for variables), and
Typed Racket is its own language and uses a custom module handler to do things
like add meta-data to the compiled module and implement an inter-module
protocol. Check out "Advanced Macrology and the Implementation of Typed
Scheme," by Culpepper et al, for an overview. Let me know if you figure
Understood, thanks anyway. Regrettably, I suspect that debugging the debugger
is beyond my abilities. Maybe someday...
--
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
Also, while I've got the DrRacket expert here, I'm having a couple of issues
with the debugger. The main one is that every time I turn it on I get a series
of dialog boxes asking permission to debug the imported module files. There's
often a lot of them, and often long delays between when they
This is a long shot, but... is there a similar workaround for jumping to the
defining file of an imported identifier, or to a particular module in a require
form? Those are the other ones I miss a lot.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users"
Outstanding, thank you.
--
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.
For more options, visit
Whenever there's an error in the definitions area, many of the conveniences
stop working. Crucially, the ability to right-click an identifier and open its
documentation is lost. If it only happened for reader errors this would make
more sense to me, but something as simple as an undefined
I was playing around with parser-tools, which has a convenient syntax in which
the elements of a grammar rule are bound in order to $1, $2, etc. This led me
to think about how the composability of non-hygienic macros could be limited by
name-collisions - not very likely in this case, but easier
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 6:22:54 PM UTC-5, gneuner2 wrote:
> I *think* Brendan is referring to caching the dispatch path - i.e. once
> you've determined the proper function to call for a set of arguments,
> you cache the arguments (or their relevant characteristics) and the
&g
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:07:26 PM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote:
> The honest answer to your question is that I don’t know (though I’d also be
> interested to hear the answer). Obviously, I’d like to see generic APIs given
> more thought, but they are currently somewhat slow due to how
Great! As an aside, do you know if there are any plans to integrate generics
(or, ideally, multiple dispatch) more tightly in later versions of Racket?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 12:36:50 PM UTC-5, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2015-12-05 09:25:59 -0800, brendan wrote:
> > Thanks Asumu. Yeah, I'm familiar with the binding concept.
>
> Ah, my apologies for overexplaining then. :)
Not at all! When it comes to the syntax and eval
Thanks Asumu. Yeah, I'm familiar with the binding concept. I guess "free" means
relative to some local expression context rather than in general, and that
wasn't clear to me. But then a completely free identifier is an error, so maybe
it should be clear. :)
--
You received this message
I was messing around in DrRacket and started writing a macro. When I finished
the first draft it gave me an error message saying that I can't use the _
wildcard in an expression context. I figured I had misremembered the format so
I went to the syntax-parse docs... well, to shorten the story I
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-5, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> When you use a REPL, like if you launch racket at the command-line, you are
> using the top-level:
>
> Welcome to Racket v6.3.0.6.
> -> (begin-for-syntax (displayln (syntax-local-context)))
> top-level
>
> (or if
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but this has been bothering me... the
Reference refers in various places to top-level variables and bindings that
apparently excludes module bodies, as in section 1.2.1: "A top-level binding is
a binding from a definition at the top-level; a module
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 1:07:32 PM UTC-5, Alex Knauth wrote:
> Maybe this would be more accurate then:
>
> #lang racket
> (define-syntax context
> (lambda (stx)
> (println (syntax-local-context))
> #'(void)))
> (context)
Great! Thank you.
--
You received this message because
I installed the package alexis-collections via DrRacket. The build process
reported problems with an unbound identifier, and after investigating I found
that my installation's racket/function module is missing a couple of things
that are in the current version on GitHub. However, DrRacket
Outstanding, thank you.
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:52:52 PM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote:
> Ah, that’s my package, and that issue is my mistake. I had a version
> exception for 6.2, but I was missing a version exception for 6.2.1. It should
> work on 6.2.1 now. Try updating
33 matches
Mail list logo
