Sorry.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> "well, I want to limit access to this because I know that X writes this code
>> and thus can I can be sure that things work
>
> This is of course a caricature of what I am
On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> "well, I want to limit access to this because I know that X writes this code
> and thus can I can be sure that things work
This is of course a caricature of what I am saying, a strawman at best, and not
worth discussing any further -- Matthia
At Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:24:04 -0600,
Neil Toronto wrote:
> Also, I just had an idea. Vincent, how hard would it be to use something
> like the current randomized testing to *search* for a more precise type?
> I'm thinking of an algorithm that iteratively 1) makes a type like (Real
> -> Real) more
On 06/28/2012 01:52 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
One more comment (even tho I promised not (and even worse this is a
kind of repetition)): I think it is easy to fall into the trap of
thinking "well, I want to limit access to this because I know that X
writes this code and thus can I can be sure that
One more comment (even tho I promised not (and even worse this is a
kind of repetition)): I think it is easy to fall into the trap of
thinking "well, I want to limit access to this because I know that X
writes this code and thus can I can be sure that things work"; we
should really be thinking abou
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> I also would like to see a macro-like compiler extension API for
> hooking into optimizations and different specialized JITing. Things
> like that are a very effective use of template meta-programming in C++
> that I think we could do better.
Thanks for your correction. I think we're saying the same thing.
Although I think that the safety we claim to have isn't really there
with unsafe ops and the FFI. I can copy the definition of a closure
out of the C headers into an FFI struct, cast the _racket pointer to a
_closure-pointer, and rea
I found your message strange and I contemplated whether I should reply on 'dev'
at all.
In the interest of sharing and evolving the Racket idea, I am going with a
response on 'dev'. Your central claim is that "the programming language
implementer is not a member of an elite, enlightened caste
8 matches
Mail list logo
