That sounds difficult. On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also this is a poor solution for me because `raco make` compiles all > the dependencies serially. I have also tried doing 'raco setup -D' for > the packages I am dependent on but that has the issue of compiling > everything in those packages which is over kill (and thus slower than > needed). > > My end goal is a very fast edit/test loop (~100ms), which may be > impossible but I want to be aggressive. > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > > Yes, Sam. I don't think anyone is happy with the status quo. > > > > Perhaps the tradeoffs have changed since last time a careful > investigation > > happened. > > > > Robby > > > > > > On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu> > > wrote: > >> > >> I don't think this is a good answer for Racket. Certainly the docs > >> don't say that you need to always do this if you want your program to > >> work right. If Racket doesn't work right in the presence of stale > >> compiled filed, then it should just error in those cases, rather than > >> doing the wrong thing. Of course it would be better to work correctly > >> in that case, but this is a hard problem, and it's reasonable to not > >> have a solution. But having the system act like it works when it > >> doesn't is worse. > >> > >> Sam > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Robby Findler > >> <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > >> > raco make x.rkt && racket x.rkt > >> > > >> > Robby > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dob...@gmail.com > > > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Great that explains it and with that information I was able to > >> >> simplify my test case to > >> >> > >> >> tmp.rkt > >> >> #lang racket > >> >> > >> >> (require "tmp2.rkt") > >> >> > >> >> (define-syntax (go stx) > >> >> (foo)) > >> >> > >> >> (go) > >> >> > >> >> tmp2.rkt > >> >> #lang racket > >> >> > >> >> (provide (for-syntax foo)) > >> >> > >> >> (begin-for-syntax > >> >> (define (foo) #'3)) > >> >> > >> >> So now the question is how do I run my code so as to not be bit by > >> >> this? I want a command to run my program that is both fast to run and > >> >> correct with regards to my source. My previous assumption was that > the > >> >> zo file's logic was safe if I wasn't trying to break it but I now > know > >> >> better. Is my only option to either always compile or never compile? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > If I understand the question: > >> >> > > >> >> > * With 34c3eed615, "pr12644.rkt" can compile and run. > >> >> > > >> >> > * With d29df205f7, "pr12644.rkt" fails to compile. > >> >> > > >> >> > * A bytecode form of "pr12644.rkt" compiled with 34c3eed615 can > >> >> > still > >> >> > run in d29df205f7, because run-time support for "pr12644.rkt" > >> >> > didn't > >> >> > change. > >> >> > > >> >> > * When you tell `racket` to run "pr12644.rkt", it will use a ".zo" > >> >> > for > >> >> > each of "pr12644.rkt" and its dependencies as long each > individual > >> >> > ".zo" file has a newer timestamp than its ".rkt" file. That is, > >> >> > the > >> >> > only timestamp comparisons are on individual ".rkt" and ".zo" > >> >> > pairs. > >> >> > > >> >> > * When you tell `raco make` to build "pr12644.rkt", it checks > >> >> > dependencies (via ".dep" file) and compares a ".rkt" file's > >> >> > timestamp against the times of all of its dependencies, instead > of > >> >> > just checking individual ".rkt" and ".zo" pairs. That's why a<
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
