If the operations in the science collection have the loops inside them, then it probably wouldn't hurt to add a check at boundary and you can make them safe, even thought the depend on the unsafe operations.
Robby On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.willi...@gmail.com> wrote: > And, given your post on the JIT optimizations for unsafe operations, I can > see where they are truly unsafe (in terms of possibly crashing instead of > just erroring.) When I make the changes to use the unsafe-fl/unsafe-fx > operations, I'll change to using unsafe- as a prefix for the science > collection operations. > > Doug > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> >> At Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:59:01 -0600, Doug Williams wrote: >> > Would it be better to call >> > the operations 'unchecked-<whatever>' instead of 'unsafe-<whatever>'? >> > Generally, we are calling the function because we know it is safe to >> > avoid >> > some constraint check - not because it is unsafe. Just a nit. >> >> Despite the distinction between unsafety for performance and unsafety >> to get at new things, I like having all unsafe operations marked the >> same way. Also, "unchecked" doesn't sound dangerous enough to me. >> >> So, you make a good point, but I'm still in favor of "unsafe". >> > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev