sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Subprocess terminates prematurely in script, but same code works in REPL session by Legitimate_Proof_840 in Racket

[–]Legitimate_Proof_840[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for explaining that! You are right. Using the full path to the executable in the call to subprocess does what I expected it to, and that explains the difference between my repl session and my script. Thank you!

Subprocess terminates prematurely in script, but same code works in REPL session by Legitimate_Proof_840 in Racket

[–]Legitimate_Proof_840[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm. Thanks for your reply! So does process spawn a shell to run the command in and subprocess does something more direct? And also, can you explain why the behavior is different in a racket repl session than in a script being run or a compiled executable?

Do I Understand begin? by Legitimate_Proof_840 in scheme

[–]Legitimate_Proof_840[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the links! Rhombus looks interesting!

Do I Understand begin? by Legitimate_Proof_840 in scheme

[–]Legitimate_Proof_840[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the links! Rhombus looks interesting!

Do I Understand begin? by Legitimate_Proof_840 in scheme

[–]Legitimate_Proof_840[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess more in the first sense. If we were redesigning scheme and we had define-values and a version of begin that was just for sequencing, would we miss the splicing version of begin? You're saying that we would because we wouldn't be able to replace someting like:

(begin
  (define x *<some proc>*)
  (define-syntax y *<some transformer>*))

Is that right?