The main problem I'm having is that the code has been around awhile and hasn't been fully converted to Racket - in particular it uses the scheme language (instead of the racket language) and uses (require (lib contract)). All of that seems to mean that I can't just add #:flat? #t - I get a message that vector-of doesn't accept keyword arguments. And, the case-> contracts use ->r, which apparently isn't supported anymore. All that means that I can't just switch to the racket language and new contracts. So, I have some conversion work to do.
On the case-> problem, it seems it no longer supports anything but ->. Is there something I am missing there? Doug On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:31:43 -0600, Doug Williams wrote: > > Matthew, would it make more sense to have unsafe-vector-ref (and related > > functions) be the more general function and unsafe-vector*-ref be the one > > that doesn't work on chaperoned vectors? That is just swap the > definitions. > > That way user code that is already using unsafe-vector-ref (etc) will > > continue to work. > > > > As it stands, existing code that has unsafe-vector-ref (etc) will often > > still work (in the sense of not getting any error or crashing), but just > > gives the wrong results. For example, if you run science-test.ss from the > > examples directory in the science collection, there are no errors. But, > some > > of the answers are wrong - for example the very first one, the gamma > > function. [In other cases, like the FFT routines, there are either > run-time > > errors or crashes.] > > > > Anyway, if it isn't too late, I think swapping the definitions would make > > more sense and be safer. > > I've gone back and forth. I agree that it would be safer, but > `vector-ref' is safer still, and I think of the job of `unsafe-X' as > providing the lowest possible overhead over `X'. It seems nicer to me > to have `*' mean "somewhere in between" rather than "even faster". Then > again, it seems bad that `vector?' (plus index bounds) isn't enough to > guard `unsafe-vector-ref'. > > Overall, at this point in the release cycle, I'm inclined to leave > things where they are (i.e., it may be too late). But let's hear more > opinions from those who use `unsafe-vector-ref' and > unsafe-vector*-ref'. > >
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
