We've just got to figure out some clever caching/incrementalization thing and then get one of google's or amazon's or whoever's trucks to drive up and plug in somewhere. Sounds like a nice research project.
Robby On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > Three hours ago, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote: >> On 2011-08-06 4:41 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> > But I think in Racket we have better ways of avoiding such danger >> > (namely using the sandbox library or the pieces it builds >> > upon). In general, in fact, you'd have to do that anyways, since a >> > contract can be some arbitrary predicate (and don't forget do-dads >> > like #:pre and friends). >> >> OK - so rather than using the contracts as a kind of executable >> documentation, just go ahead and try out each possibility in the >> sandbox? Not a bad approach. > > This makes more sense. In some cases, the contracts would be > implemented manually (eg, primitives), etc. So running it in a > sandbox makes the most sense in terms of getting safe executions as > well as limiting the time you wait for each try. > > *However*, there's an awful lot of functions to try -- going over them > will make a very slow search... > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
