Long ago there’s was a plugin for DrR just for that. It’s probably still on the Planet server somewhere. I’m on my phone right now but if you’re interested I should be able to dig it up later.

By ‘for that’ i mean reverting tabs automatically.

For aarch64, you’d have to compile from source. [Dr]Racket should work from a source compile, though.

Linux Penguin: Chromebooks run ChromeOS, which restricts each application to a sandbox. Crostini is a facility which creates virtual machine “containers” which make it possible to run Linux applications on ChromeOS. It’s possible to create more than one Linux container, but the default container name is Penguin.

I think this is an interesting community to which to ask this question because Lisp programmers are masters of quoting. My question is about quoting in general. In “I am a Strange Loop” (a book I think many here have read), the author mentions Godel’s Proof, the book by Nagel and Newman. He talks about a footnote in that book cautioning the reader about use and mention. (I read that book too, by the way.) Obviously, “chair” is a word and chair is an object — or perhaps the concept of a certain type of which which we all know very well. When I want to talk about the word itself, I must quote. When I am making a reference to the concept, I don’t need to quote. So if I’m speaking about a linguistic element, I quote; otherwise I do not.

But let’s review my very paragraph above. I quoted Doug Hofstadter’s book and did not quote Nagel and Newman’s. Somehow I think that’s proper use of the English language. I made a reference to the Nagel and Newman’s book, not a particular copy of the book nor to to the words of its title, but to the book itself, its content. I don’t have to quote its title. But why did I quote Hofstadter’s book? Because otherwise it seems the words “I”, “am”, “a”, “Strange”, “Loop” could be taken as grammatical elements of my own sentence, while my desire is to use the name of the work. I suppose I could have written: “In I-am-a-Strange-Loop, the author […]”, but not usually what we do when using the name of a work. It seems that the trouble lies with the fact that that name is a whole sentence in its own right.

Am I slipping somewhere? Help to me clarify this? Thank you!

“Godel’s Proof” - is that the little black one with white text on the cover?

I think my copy is not black at all. It’s more like brownish, I think.

I think I read this one at some point: https://www.bookdepository.com/Godels-Proof-Ernest-Nagel/9780415040402

That’s the one, yes. (My copy looks much older, though. I suppose I have some first edition, first printing.)

Great book.

Here’s one closer my cover: https://www.bookdepository.com/Godels-Proof-Ernest-Nagel/9780814758373?ref=pd_detail_1_sims_b_v2v_1

Mine is not blueish, though. Mine is brownish. Probably even older.

Yes, the book is great. I read this one first. Then I read “An Introduction to Godel’s Theorems” by Peter Smith. Even better, I think. Much more details and he goes one to various ramifications — into Computer Science, for example. (But also much more technical for sure.)

Is that the book with that one gigantic footnote?

Which one? Godel’s Proof is full of gigantic footnotes. There are notes too in an appendix. Long notes. Great notes!

Godel’s Proof.

Peter Smith is also fond of footnotes, though. Maybe not as much as Nagel and Newman.

I’m fond of footnotes.

They give me a sense of — there’s so much more to this subject… You have no idea! :smile:

If you’re interested, here are two (unrelated) perspectives I have: - Most quoting in most Racket code is unnecessary and produces hard to read code - The Foo.class syntax in Java is a kind of quoting

@notjack Do you mean, say, ’(1 2 3) is unnecessary and hard to read?

@anything Yes. And I’m not so hot on '(foo bar baz) either.

How would you write ’(foo bar baz)?

I’d rather write and read (list 1 2 3) and (list 'foo 'bar 'baz)

The use-mention distinction isn’t native to discussions about programming languages, and it really isn’t about the use of certain lexical symbols (like quotation marks).

I tend to make more exceptions for the symbol case though. Things like module paths are confusing to read if they’re written differently based on whether the code uses dynamic-require or require.

The distinction is semantic, but it’s usually signaled by a syntactic distinction.

But like everything in natural language, there are exceptions.

Though, I’m not entirely sure I understand the original question.

You say that you quoted Hofstadter’s book and not Nagel and Newman’s, but I think you mean you quoted the title of the book, right? Which is a convention of written English and maybe not quite… I mean: it is an example of mentioning, sure. But it’s not just that.

Perhaps very briefly, should I write " ‘I am a Strange Loop’ is a book"? I say I should not. Because “I am a Strange Loop” is a sentence without a period. This sentence is a name and I don’t need to quote names all the time, unless I’m speaking about the name itself as a linguistic element, which I was not. My explanation as to my usage is simply that I need something like a grouping device. My meaning is thus this: In (I am a Strange Loop), the author mentions […].

“I am a Strange Loop” is the title of a book. Quoting it (or, well, more often italicizing it) is a convention of the language.

Quoting proper names is not a convention of the language.

Like I said, the use-mention distinction is not about syntax.

So it seems like an exception.

Any is a human being. No quote required.

Godel’s Proof is a book. (Doesn’t quite need quoting, I guess.) I am a Strange Loop is a book. (That seems to ask for quoting.) (Got to go. Will be back later.)

Your two last examples are both ambiguous. “Godel’s Proof is a book” could be read as “Godel’s “Proof” is a book”.

Actually that example seems more ambiguous than the “I am a Strange Loop” one. I can see no sensical way of reading “I am a Strange Loop is a book” other than ” “I am a Strange Loop” is a book”.

Both of these examples are (I think) normal use of names. A mention of a name would be something like “Any” is used as a name in Slack.

And if you think that natural language ought to be completely consistent (hint: it’s not), you might then expect “I am a Strange Loop” to be double quoted in cases where you’re mentioning the title. But no one would do that.

@mflatt and @robby So I found a way to reliably reproduce the DrRacket crash. (At least on linux)

The issue seems to be scrolling related.

If you make a file big enough to have a scroll bar (especially if you are using a big font)

and scroll up and down rapidly. It causes DrRacket to freeze and slowly consume more and more memory.

It also makes sense that it effects me because (due to my vision) I have the text huge and tend to scroll very rapidly to compensate.

@leif I haven’t been able to replicate this, yet. Do you get a stack trace when you start DrRacket from a terminal, then hit Ctl-C there when it’s stuck?

@mflatt No. In fact, sometimes I can’t Ctr-C it and I have to kill–9 it.

And it also sometimes starts using all my ram and even starts swapping.

(Although by that point the OS likes to kill it)

Oh, it looks like it might not happen on Windows or Mac.

Just linux.

leif@FEM ~/student-data (master*) $ drracket ^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^Z [1] + 7666 suspended drracket leif@FEM ~/student-data (master*) $ kill -9 %1 leif@FEM ~/student-data (master*) $ [1] + 7666 killed drracket

I’m trying on Linux

Hmm…interesting. What version of gtk?

Currently using Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold \| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend \|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) \|\|/ Name Version Architecture Description +++-================-=============-=============-===================================== ii libgtk-3-0:amd64 3.22.30-1ubun amd64 GTK+ graphical user interface library ii libgtk2.0-0:amd6 2.24.32-1ubun amd64 GTK+ graphical user interface library

Oh, also @michael.ballantyne can only reproduce it if he’s doing it while hovering over a button, like the macro stepper button.

I’m confused by that last bit of information, which may help point what what I’m missing: If the mouse is not over the text area, how are you scrolling (i.e., how are scroll events not uselessly delivered to the macro-stepper button)?

For me it doesn’t seem that scrolling in the scroll area does it. I suspect I thought that when I first tried it because I accidentally moved my mouse over another part of the UI as I was scrolling.

But it does appear that if I scroll my scroll wheel down very fast (doesn’t have to be for long) while hovering one of the buttons like the macro stepper button, it hangs as Leif describes

quite reliably

I tried exactly that on windows and os x to no effect

only happens on linux

Ah, ok - I see it now.

@mflatt Woot.

The key really was to scroll quickly in a canvas that is not an editor canvas. I’ve pushed a repair.

@mflatt Okay, thanks, pulling and building.

So what happened?

New handling of scroll events did not do the right thing for compatibility mode, which is all canvases except editor canvases.

Ah, makes sense.

So it probably was my accessability software that was triggering it…maybe.

Anyway, thanks.

@mflatt Welp, it happened for me again.

(Although my mouse was in the text field this time.)

Hmm…and it still also crashes when hovering over a button.

@michael.ballantyne do you see it?

I just signed into the package server and tried to edit the description of one of my packages, and I got an error about a proxy. An attempt to click the edit button on another package gave me an error saying the service was down. Same thing when I noticed I was logged out again and clicked the button to log in.

working now :)

Just to make sure, which checksum of gui-lib do you have (as reported by raco pkg show gui-lib)? Or are you using a clone of the racket/gui repo?

Ah, yup, it hadn’t updated.

(When I made a clean install the other day I forgot to run raco pkg update --clone on the gui lib.)

@anything I haven’t read “I am a Strange Loop,” but, while it’s a bit of a tangent, but the mention of chairs reminded me of “One and Three Chairs,” a conceptual artwork by Joseph Kosuth that problematizes the idea that “we all know very well” what a chair is.

Getting closer to implementing reducer and transducer contracts: