Neil,
what you’re looking for are
— Stephen Chang’s Turnstile
— Michael Ballantyne’s core language
projects. The first one is an alternative way to add types to an eDSL.
You can get all the type information you need and you can perform all
the static checking you want.
The second
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 06:11:09AM -0800, Jérôme Martin wrote:
> I'm also occasionally writing posts about Racket on my blog. Only one is
> public for now, and is a multi-parts tutorial about writing DSLs in Racket.
>
> I'm trying to summarize and reformulate some of the things I learned by
>
Typed Racket does not have an IR in the sense you describe, and the
Typed Racket internals are not exposed in a way that's intended for
general consumption. More generally, I think Typed Racket's type
system is not likely to be a good fit for GPU computation.
If you want to give it a try, though,
Thanks for providing a definitive answer to my question, Sam. I'm glad to
see integrating the two is an active goal. Best of luck!
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:45:03 AM UTC-9, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> Hi Jake,
>
> Unfortunately, Typed Racket doesn't currently support the contract
>
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 07:58 -0800, Will Jukes wrote:
> After learning more Haskell I've been playing around with match and
> define/match, and I'm wondering if there's any particular reason to
> prefer more traditional Scheme forms over match (I vastly prefer match
> in most cases). Glancing at
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:53 AM Jack Rosenthal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 07:58 -0800, Will Jukes wrote:
> > After learning more Haskell I've been playing around with match and
> > define/match, and I'm wondering if there's any particular reason to
> > prefer more traditional Scheme forms
I'm also occasionally writing posts about Racket on my blog. Only one is
public for now, and is a multi-parts tutorial about writing DSLs in Racket.
I'm trying to summarize and reformulate some of the things I learned by
making small languages in Racket. If you already read Beautiful Racket, I
Den man. 17. dec. 2018 kl. 16.58 skrev Will Jukes :
> After learning more Haskell I've been playing around with match and
> define/match, and I'm wondering if there's any particular reason to prefer
> more traditional Scheme forms over match (I vastly prefer match in most
> cases). Glancing at
I agree that it would be much better to write good blog posts about Racket.
They don't need to be fantastic, they don't need to be better than the
documentation, they only has to be interesting. I usually prefer post with
one or two big relevant graph (or photos when there is hardware involve), I
Hi Jake,
Unfortunately, Typed Racket doesn't currently support the contract
library. We've made a bunch of progress on integrating them, but that
work is still (slowly) ongoing here:
https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/pull/420.
Depending on what you're looking for, refinement types may be
After learning more Haskell I've been playing around with match and
define/match, and I'm wondering if there's any particular reason to prefer
more traditional Scheme forms over match (I vastly prefer match in most
cases). Glancing at the match module it looks the process of expanding a
match
11 matches
Mail list logo
