Does it make sense for a non-Racket #lang module to `provide` both
*safe* and *unsafe* (in the sense of `racket/unsafe/ops`) variants of
procedures?
If so, any tricks to doing that?
For example:
* A function `foo` defined in this #lang module might result in the
module providing two Racket pr
I had missed bcrypt while looking, it would seem. Thank you for telling
me my options!
Regards,
- Philip B.
On 9/28/2015 4:54 PM, John Clements wrote:
On Sep 28, 2015, at 5:56 AM, Philip Blair wrote:
Hello everyone,
I am considering a little project which will involve calling some FFI functio
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:01:55AM -0700, Paul Stansifer wrote:
> >
> > 3. I'm getting some seriously long names, making output rather unreadable.
> > The output of some of my tests:
> >
> > '(λ (x159160161162 : Bool) x159160161162)
> > '(λ (x168169170171172 : Bool) x168169170171172)
> > '
I'm coming to Racket after many decades of programming in other
languages. One of the things that still gives me trouble is being able
to know exactly what type of "thing" I have at any given point.
Let me give you an example, which is actually quire similar to a
question asked last December. I'
On 09/29/2015 12:28 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
I'm coming to Racket after many decades of programming in other
languages. One of the things that still gives me trouble is being able
to know exactly what type of "thing" I have at any given point.
Let me give you an example, which is actually quire s
How about making an unsafe submodule?
#lang racket/base
(provide vplus)
(module+ unsafe
(provide vplus)
(require racket/unsafe/ops))
(define (vplus v1 v2)
(build-vector (vector-length v1)
(lambda (i) (+ (vector-ref v1 i)
(vector-ref v2 i)
(module+ unsafe
(de
Hi all,
Is it possible to make a variant of this program work or is this a top-level
hopelessness issue?
#lang racket/load
(define-syntax (m stx)
(define x (car (generate-temporaries '(1
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ lib name)
#`(begin (require (only-in lib [name #,x]))
7 matches
Mail list logo