On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > An hour ago, John Clements wrote: >> >> 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. > > Thanks(!) > > I should have clarified further -- what we have at the momemt is a > consisten use of an "unsafe" part in the path for potentially > segfaulting functionality. So having some unsafe/safe thing doesn't > make much sense (and begs the question about undebugging some things > with unsafe/safe/unsafe). > > In any case, I think that something that would have made you happier > is for the `unsafe/foo' libraries to provide the same name as the safe > ones. This way you'd only need to toggle the `unsafe/' prefix on or > off. (I'd like that change too, but we're probably deep enough in the > current setup to change that...)
I thought about this, but I really like the current setup, where the unsafe-ness must be indicated at the use of the function. I think this is especially true of common primitives like "vector-length". If I were debugging a piece of code, it would never occur to me that an ordinary-looking call to 'vector-length' might actually be unsafe. > > >> 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. > > First, I think that what was suggested earlier should work -- changing > this: > > (require unsafe/foo) > -> > (require (prefix-in unsafe- foo)) This doesn't work for (require racket/unsafe/ops); that's why I wanted to add it. > > But the more common use case (which I've done in a number of places) > is to use `foo' first, make sure the code runs and write a ton of > tests, then turn the require into one that *drops* the `unsafe-' > prefix. This frightens me, for the reasons I describe above. > > A slightly different approach is in `racket/private/sort' -- define > names that are used throughout, and switch the definition from a safe > one to an unsafe one. That sounds like what you described before, though perhaps I'm not understanding you. John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
