I wonder if the unit system, or something like it, could be a basis for
implementing this, especially the aspect of avoiding too much explicit
argument passing.
Signatures can define bundles of identifiers, like file IO primitives. This
lets you avoid having to know which specific primitives are
If you want to solve problems like how to handle user conceptual models
of permissions, consider putting "UX" aside for a moment.
UX gets confused by conflicts of interest, which the earlier disciplines
of HCI and human factors engineering did not much have.
HCI comes from a human factors
Hi Christopherm
> Of course I don't expect someone to launch solitaire from the REPL, and
> indeed there are UX considerations once we move from the REPL to actual
I wasn't thinking so much of UX issues, but of the differences in the
level of abstraction that different people need. The
Konrad Hinsen writes:
> Hi Chris,
>
Hi Konrad,
> While I understand the general goal you are aiming at, it isn't quite
> clear to me who you are trying to protect against who. There's a wide
> spectrum of people involved, ranging from language designers via library
> developers and application
Hi Chris,
While I understand the general goal you are aiming at, it isn't quite
clear to me who you are trying to protect against who. There's a wide
spectrum of people involved, ranging from language designers via library
developers and application developers to end users. Who is going to
define
ra...@airmail.cc writes:
> There is http://shill.seas.harvard.edu/ it runs on freebsd.
Yes, it's a good source of inspiration. However it's really meant for
shell scripting and isn't quite a good fit for the case I need, which is
for more general racket programming.
--
You received this
There is http://shill.seas.harvard.edu/ it runs on freebsd.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view
Hi Dionna, thanks for your reply!
I gave a response to you IRL that I think I hadn't conveyed here which
is that there's a reason I'm taking the lambda-approach to capabilities
(which is explicit) vs an ambient/dynamic approach of continuation
marks. One reason is that the work I'm trying to
Capabilities can be tracked with continuation marks. For a language to
grant a subset of capabilities to a required module, you can do something
like contract-in that will wrap identifiers with a with-continuation-marks
capability restriction. The tricky part becomes how to make all I/O
subsystems
9 matches
Mail list logo
