On Sep 7, Faré wrote:
> Maybe it's better to keep the very same name as the safe operation,
> and let whoever imports it choose a different prefix. The immediate
> benefit is that switching from safe to unsafe becomes trivial, which
> is great for developing and testing in safe mode but delivering and
> running in unsafe mode.
That was one of the options to implementing this, but I think that it
is a little less convenient. There is also an issue with some of the
operators that have no safe edquivalents -- for example, there is no
`fl*' function.
In any case, there is the `filtered-in' form for requiring modules
(from the `scheme/require' module) that can be used to achieve the
same effect:
Welcome to MzScheme v4.2.1.8 [3m], Copyright (c) 2004-2009 PLT Scheme Inc.
> (require scheme/require
(filtered-in (lambda (s)
(let ([m (regexp-match #rx"^unsafe-(.*)$" s)])
(and m (cadr m))))
scheme/unsafe/ops))
> (car 3)
SIGSEGV fault on 0xf
zsh: abort mz
And, of course, going from here to defining an unsafe language like
you want is easy.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
