On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names > is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need > for a library.
Sure, I don't feel strongly about it. Done. To be clear, my use case is this: I'm trying to debug a seg fault in a large library, with >500 uses of 'unsafe-' operators. I want to see whether using the corresponding safe variants eliminates the crash. The global search and replace is a bit of a pain; replacing racket/unsafe/ops with racket/unsafe/safe-ops is much easier. Naturally, though, you can always roll your own as needed. John
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev