Nice parry! What may be straightforward to you may not be so obvious to me. But I'll take a look.
I'm deep into a project using Racket for weakest precondition analysis. Every time I'm debugging it seems like I have to write another special-purpose accessor, or export some existing accessor up through multiple levels in order to get at the data I need at the top-level. I remember how easy it was with the Lisp Machine to navigate through data no matter what it was. The Lisp Machine offered total transparency, with no real way to protect data, to the benefit of the developer. Racket offers total opacity, to the benefit of code security. I'm hoping there's a middle ground, where transparency can be turned on and off. Byron On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > Sounds like a straightforward change to the existing macros. Why don't you > create a fork and experiment? > > > On Jan 21, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Byron Davies <byrondav...@starshine.us> > wrote: > > > Or, more conservatively, every struct and object in a given package, > file, or set of files. > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Byron Davies <byrondav...@starshine.us> > wrote: > > Would it be easy to create a compiler flag that would make every struct > and object transparent? This would then make it easy to create a Lisp > Machine-style Inspector that would be able to roam through every data > structure during debugging. > > > > Byron > > > > > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev