Jay McCarthy
Jay McCarthy
I'm very happy that you did it and that it works. I'm very anxious because of the big change and yet-another-parser library. There is a test suite, but I think...
We've been sitting on this for a long time. Any updates on the testing worry?
If I understand correctly, Racket already does this in via `current-alist-separator-mode` https://github.com/racket/racket/blob/master/racket/collects/net/uri-codec.rkt#L249-L255 As far as the Web server goes, I believe you can just change that parameter and all is...
I think the right thing to do is for you not use the result of `dispatch-rules` as your `start`, but instead use another function that does this URL rewriting on...
This hasn't been updated in a long time and is only guaranteed to work on the versions it was designed for
Try changing the contract to `(any/c any/c (-> any) . -> . any)`; do you get a different error?
Did you test with `master`? Looking at the transformation, I don't feel like there should actually be a restriction on single values in this case, but the error you quote...
If I have N labels, then I expect the minimal code size to be: ``` 1 byte for op N bytes for labels N bytes for values 1 byte for...
> In your minimal code size, you show one byte for each value. Are you presuming that the values must be in the `bytecblock`? An advantage of the proposed "stack"...
I think that `pushints` is a great option. Ship it ;) Very clever solution! So obvious in retrospect.