On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> > It is such a short macro; do we really need to add 3 more exports to > > scheme/base for that? > > +1 for not adding it, for exactly that reason. (It probbaly doesn't > even have to always be a macro, since the sexpr will usually not be > expensive to construct.) > what if you want to do intermediate processing on the log before flushing it out to the stream? I think that's where logging sexp (or other objects) would be useful. For example, have the log receiver receiving a sexp and immediately handle the information contained in sexp without having to incur the cost of parsing. yc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/archive/dev/attachments/20090219/b48433d3/attachment.html>
