And, given your post on the JIT optimizations for unsafe operations, I can see where they are truly unsafe (in terms of possibly crashing instead of just erroring.) When I make the changes to use the unsafe-fl/unsafe-fx operations, I'll change to using unsafe- as a prefix for the science collection operations.
Doug On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:59:01 -0600, Doug Williams wrote: > > Would it be better to call > > the operations 'unchecked-<whatever>' instead of 'unsafe-<whatever>'? > > Generally, we are calling the function because we know it is safe to > avoid > > some constraint check - not because it is unsafe. Just a nit. > > Despite the distinction between unsafety for performance and unsafety > to get at new things, I like having all unsafe operations marked the > same way. Also, "unchecked" doesn't sound dangerous enough to me. > > So, you make a good point, but I'm still in favor of "unsafe". > >
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
