Super! Thank you.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:21:51 -0700, Byron Davies wrote:
> > Your code, commented:
> >
> > (define orig-i (current-inspector)) ; saves the original inspector
> > (define sub-i (make-inspector orig-i)) ;make a new inspec
At Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:21:51 -0700, Byron Davies wrote:
> Your code, commented:
>
> (define orig-i (current-inspector)) ; saves the original inspector
> (define sub-i (make-inspector orig-i)) ;make a new inspector whose parent
> is the original inspector
>
> (current-inspector sub-i) ;makes th
I don't think you want to do anything with the compiler or macros.
Instead, it's a matter of having a sufficiently powerful inspector
(which is the concept of "inspectability" turned into a language
construct).
If you have just
(struct a (x))
(a 1)
then the result will print as `#`. But if you
Nice parry! What may be straightforward to you may not be so obvious to
me. But I'll take a look.
I'm deep into a project using Racket for weakest precondition analysis.
Every time I'm debugging it seems like I have to write another
special-purpose accessor, or export some existing accessor up t
Sounds like a straightforward change to the existing macros. Why don't you
create a fork and experiment?
On Jan 21, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Byron Davies wrote:
> Or, more conservatively, every struct and object in a given package, file, or
> set of files.
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:03 AM, By
Or, more conservatively, every struct and object in a given package, file,
or set of files.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Byron Davies
wrote:
> Would it be easy to create a compiler flag that would make every struct
> and object transparent? This would then make it easy to create a Lisp
> M
6 matches
Mail list logo
