On 4/23/2015 1:45 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:35 PM, David Vanderson
david.vander...@gmail.com wrote:
Jay - is there any connection between a saved continuation and the thread
that created it?
The values of the parameters are saved in the continuation and
inherited from
Hi David,
On 4/23/2015 1:35 PM, David Vanderson wrote:
What I want to do is:
create a hash representing the return object
- data to return
- URL for next page function (if applicable)
- URL for prev page function (if applicable)
convert the hash to a jsexpr
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:32 AM, George Neuner gneun...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Jay,
On 4/24/2015 7:03 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:31 AM, George Neuner gneun...@comcast.net
wrote:
On 4/23/2015 1:45 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
The values of the parameters are saved in
Actually, looking over this, it looks like #:dispatch just overrides the
existing predicate rather than augmenting it in any way. This still seems
pretty strange. What is the use case for this?
On Apr 24, 2015, at 00:49, Alexis King lexi.lam...@gmail.com wrote:
I’m working my way through
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:31 AM, George Neuner gneun...@comcast.net wrote:
On 4/23/2015 1:45 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:35 PM, David Vanderson
david.vander...@gmail.com wrote:
Jay - is there any connection between a saved continuation and the
thread
that created
Hi Jay,
On 4/24/2015 7:03 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:31 AM, George Neuner gneun...@comcast.net wrote:
On 4/23/2015 1:45 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
The values of the parameters are saved in the continuation and
inherited from the thread.
That's going to be a problem
2015-04-24 0:18 GMT+02:00 Alexander D. Knauth alexan...@knauth.org:
What’s wrong with at-exp though?
I personally don’t like (planet soegaard/infix) as much mostly because the
other options have the benefit of working with DrRacket features such as
check-syntax arrows and blue-boxes, but
Thanks, I take note of that.
I was mislead by the examples in the infix docs of Jens Axel Søgaard.
These examples start with #lang at-exp scheme.
Sorry, my fault.
Jos
_
From: Alexander D. Knauth [mailto:alexan...@knauth.org]
Sent: viernes, 24 de abril de 2015 12:59
To: Jos Koot
Cc: Jens
On 4/24/2015 7:36 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
My point is that ONLY the result of make-parameter and parameterize is
saved from the thread. In Racket a parameter has nothing to do with
a function argument. I believe you are confused by the two when you
say There are 9 arguments If you follow
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:13 AM, George Neuner gneun...@comcast.net wrote:
On 4/24/2015 7:36 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
My point is that ONLY the result of make-parameter and parameterize is
saved from the thread. In Racket a parameter has nothing to do with
a function argument. I believe you
2015-04-23 18:51 GMT+02:00 Jos Koot jos.k...@gmail.com:
Long ago I made various parsers (most of them in Fortran or assembler)
for expressions with infix notation. I always used push-down automata with
two or more stacks. Now I am playing with macros in Racket that allow
infix notation
Sorry, it was me that was not following.
After looking into your source main.ss I found out how to use macro $.
Looked into some of your other source files too.
Impressive.
Thanks, Jos
_
From: jensaxelsoega...@gmail.com [mailto:jensaxelsoega...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Jens Axel Søgaard
On 4/24/2015 1:29 PM, David Vanderson wrote:
It sounds like you are not happy with the continuation model.
No. I am just trying to understand how it works and to figure out
whether I can work with it. The documentation sometimes is not clear
and getting enough information sometimes is like
On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard jensa...@soegaard.net wrote:
As it turns out, it is at-exp that are at fault.
The screen shot below show that arrows and renaming works when using the
infix packages with the syntax:
($ b^2-4*a*x)
Note that it works even for
Carl introduced it in this commit:
https://github.com/plt/racket/commit/97b78ace5b3f7cebe7604513142ba488acee6903
The motivation seems to allowing dispatch to fail faster (and go on to
the next case) for defaults / fast-defaults. E.g., if you know that the
only lists that are dicts are alists,
Are you sure you have the latest version of the code? That line number
isn't a function in my version.
Robby
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Alexander D. Knauth
alexan...@knauth.org wrote:
Restarting didn’t help, and running raco setup and then restarting didn’t
help either.
On Apr 24,
2015-04-24 18:25 GMT+02:00 Jos Koot jos.k...@gmail.com:
Hi Jens Axel,
Thanks for replying and explaining.
Can you discriminate between a+b and |a+b| or a|+|b?
When I get around to adding |...| identifiers to the lexer, it will work
like this:
a+b will be parsed as (+ a b)
|a+b| as
Hi Jens Axel,
Thanks for replying and explaining.
Can you discriminate between a+b and |a+b| or a|+|b?
I don't see how without using a language with it's own key-binding for |.
I prefer my infix to be usable without forcing the user to go into a
specific language. For the moment I use
On 04/24/2015 06:39 AM, George Neuner wrote:
Possibly. Sorry, I moved on to something else in the meantime and I
have to get back to this.
Is it required to use define or would let bound variables in start
work also?
George
Yes - let bound variables would work the same.
Thanks,
Dave
On 04/24/2015 08:13 AM, George Neuner wrote:
I'm not using parameterize at all (at least not explicitly). I
receive a web request that has up to 9 arguments contained in its
bindings.
(define (search request)
(let* [
(params (request-bindings request))
(cookies
I’m working my way through the implementation of racket/generic, and this
jumped out at me as a little odd. Apparently, in the #:defaults and
#:fast-defaults clauses of define-generics, there is support for an
undocumented #:dispatch clause. Using it looks a like this:
(define-generics fooable
I have trouble translating the following into a define-language form:
term ::= number
term ::= number + term
An attempt like:
(define-language my-language
(term number (number + term))
does not work. It accepts (1 + (2 + 3)) and ((1 + 2) +3) but not (1 + 2 +
3).
May be there already is
22 matches
Mail list logo
