documentation (albeit limited) on the macro stepper:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/macro-debugger/index.html#%28part._.Using_the_.Macro_.Stepper%29
You can also find `expand/step` there, which I find to be a very useful
complement to using DrRacket to step through the expansion of an entire
module.
Le Monday 27 November 2017 05:18:02 pm David Storrs, vous avez écrit :
>
> > 2. The macro stepper is extremely handy when it works, and being able to
> > inspect syntax objects in the interactions pane is wonderful when the
> > macro stepper doesn't work.
>
> Offtopic: This is the one big
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:43 PM, David Thrane Christiansen
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>> I’ve noticed some list members use other editors or IDE’s.
>>
>> I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors;
>> normally a combination of familiarity
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:48:16AM +, Robby Findler wrote:
> It may help to disable online compilation. (Click on the little circle in
> the bottom to get a menu that lets you disable it.)
Ah! Thanks for the suggestion; I'll give that a try.
Richard
--
You received this message because
I generally use DrRacket for all my Racket dev because it "just works
(tm)". I have sometimes used other editors for it, and the main things I
miss from those usually are autocomplete (DrR has this but it's always been
way too slow for me so I never turn it on), more detailed syntax
highlighting
It may help to disable online compilation. (Click on the little circle in
the bottom to get a menu that lets you disable it.)
Robby
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:21 PM Richard Cobbe wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 03:42:14PM +, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
i use emacs with all Scheme implementations and also for Racket,when debugging
i can use the racket editor that display information about trace calls
but i still modify in emacs and refresh only in DrRacket, in emacs i appeciate
the syntax highlighting and the search and replace fast short-cuts
On 26/11/2017 16:42, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote:
I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness
factors; normally a combination of familiarity (hence speed) with a lot
of powerful features and non-transportable customisation.
A third big reason is generality. The main
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 11:27 AM, 'Royall Spence' via users-redirect
> wrote:
>
> DrRacket actually does the things it claims to do and isn't a broken mess.
Yes, it is an amazing tool. I occasionally escape to Emacs for tasks that I
can’t do easily in Dr (e.g.
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 03:42:14PM +, Stephen De Gabrielle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’ve noticed some list members use other editors or IDE’s.
>
> I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors;
> normally a combination of familiarity (hence speed) with a lot of powerful
>
Hi Stephen,
> I’ve noticed some list members use other editors or IDE’s.
>
> I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors;
> normally a combination of familiarity (hence speed) with a lot of powerful
> features and non-transportable customisation.
>
> Putting
DrRacket is never going to be able to do everything as well as Emacs
(and DrRacket can do some things a lot better than Emacs), but a few
small conveniences that I'd like to see in DrRacket when I use it:
* Visually distinguish identifiers that start special syntax separate
from `#lang
One thing I appreciate about racket-mode in emacs is the more
detailed syntax highlighting. I've attached two screenshots of the
same code in emacs and DrRacket. I think what's happening here is
that racket-mode highlights `for-clause` names and function
applications (sometimes?) while DrRacket
Hi,
I’ve noticed some list members use other editors or IDE’s.
I know two big reasons for using a complex tool is it’s stickiness factors;
normally a combination of familiarity (hence speed) with a lot of powerful
features and non-transportable customisation.
Putting stickiness factors aside,
14 matches
Mail list logo