00:54 <gnucode> does #lang racket/gui use libhandy?

00:54 <gnucode> do racket graphical apps scale from a phone to a desktop?

11:11 <Putonlalla> I had some definitions in `begin-for-syntax`, so I thought I could move those into their own file and then `require` it `for-syntax`, but that broke `#%app` and various other things. What's the difference between these two ways?

11:16 <Putonlalla> Here's a simple example. `(begin-for-syntax (define (check id) (syntax-case id (_) (_ #''sure-is-underscore) (id #''looks-like-something-else)))) (define-syntax (check-id stx) (syntax-case stx () ((_ id) (check #'id)))) (check-id _)`

11:29 <Putonlalla> It breaks if I replace the `begin-for-syntax` form with these. `(module checker racket/base (require (for-syntax racket/base)) (provide check) (define (check id) (syntax-case id (_) (_ #''sure-is-underscore) (id #''looks-like-something-else)))) (require (for-syntax 'checker))`

15:54 <samth> Putonlalla: you need to add `(require (for-template racket/base))` not `for-syntax` in the `checker` module

19:23 <skeemer> hello everyone i was wondering if racket had the same interactivity of common lisp

19:23 <skeemer> or something similar

19:30 <samth> skeemer: it's not possible to interactively redefine things that are defined in modules in Racket, so idiomatically people do not use interactive redefinition much in Racket

19:30 <samth> also, the traditional top-level has some challenges with using macros heavily, which Racket does

19:30 <skeemer> so Racket does not make a heavy use of macros i guess?

19:31 <skeemer> samth: right?

19:32 <skeemer> i mean i would be fine with common lisp if it had continuations... since i wanted to read the seasoned schemer and it makes heavy use of continuations

19:32 <samth> skeemer: no, racket does make heavy use of macros, which is another reason why Racket programmers do not use the top-level to the same degree as in lisp

19:32 <skeemer> what does it mean "the top level" in this context

19:34 <samth> the read-eval-print loop