<div dir="ltr">Or use DrRacket and turn on the auto compilation feature. Or set up compiler/cm yourself to do that.<div> </div><div>Robby</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Eric Dobson <<a href="mailto:eric.n.dobson@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.n.dobson@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">That doesn't explain why I can get the same behavior as the macro with a function call, probably inlining is responsible for that though. So the take away is that if I want my running system to represent the current state of the source files I either need to run raco make every single time, or never run raco make. That seems very counter intuitive. <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Tobias Hammer <<a href="mailto:tobias.hammer@dlr.de">tobias.hammer@dlr.de</a>> wrote: > The difference lies in the method how racket and raco make check for > changes. > - racket only looks at each individual file's timestamp source and .zo > timestamp and uses whichever is never. > - raco make always checks if the file has changed or any of its dependencies > has changed to decide if it has to recompile the file. > > Whats happens in version 1 is that the macro is already expanded in a.zo and > a.zo is still never than a.rkt. Therefore racket loads a.zo (but b.rkt) and > prints 'version1. > In version 2 raco make (or more correctly compiler/cm) checks a.rkt, finds > the dependency to b.rkt, notices the change in b.rkt (by calculating a > checksum over the whole dependency tree if i remember correct) and therefore > recompiles a.rkt AND b.rkt. > > Version 3 should as far as i understand never differ, assumed raco make > works. > > Tobias > > > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:23:24 +0100, Eric Dobson <<a href="mailto:eric.n.dobson@gmail.com">eric.n.dobson@gmail.com</a>> > wrote: > >> I'm trying to understand what are the guarantees that raco make is >> meant to provide. I'm going to limit this to simple programs, no fancy >> dynamic requires, or trying to trick the compiler. >> >> In the following scenario: >> 1. Edit files >> 2. run 'raco make <files>' >> 3. Change files >> I expect all of these to have the same effect during the running of >> phase 0 when running racket. >> 4. racket <main-file> >> or >> 4. raco make <files> >> 5. racket <main-file> >> or >> 4. rm -rf compiled/ >> 5. raco make <files> >> 6. racket <main-file> >> >> I can make version 1 and 2 differ with the following program: >> a.rkt >> #lang racket >> (require "b.rkt") >> (macro) >> >> #lang racket >> (provide maco) >> (define-syntax (macro stx) >> #''version1) >> >> Where the edit is changing version1 to version2. I can also replicate >> this with a function and not a macro. >> >> I thought I could make version 2 and version 3 differ, but cannot seem >> to replicate it now, but it would be helpful to know if I see >> something that is fixed by clearing the compiled directories. >> >> My understanding was that racket used the same logic as raco make on >> whether or not to use the compiled versions versus recompiling, and >> this seems to refute that. Can someone give some insight on what I >> should be expecting? >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a> > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------- > Tobias Hammer > DLR / Robotics and Mechatronics Center (RMC) > Muenchner Str. 20, D-82234 Wessling > Tel.: 08153/28-1487 > Mail: <a href="mailto:tobias.hammer@dlr.de">tobias.hammer@dlr.de</a> ____________________ Racket Users list: <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a> </div></div></blockquote></div> </div>