You can already set! top level variables (or any variables) bound to
functions.
$ racket
Welcome to Racket v6.12.
> (define (f) 1)
> (f)
1
> (set! f (lambda () 2))
> (f)
2
Alternatively, here is a little example of how you might define lambda-box:
#lang racket
(struct lambda-box ([proc #:mutable])
#:property prop:procedure
(make-keyword-procedure
(λ (kws kw-args this . by-pos-args)
(keyword-apply (lambda-box-proc this)
kws
kw-args
by-pos-args))))
(define f
(lambda-box (λ () 1)))
(f)
(set-lambda-box-proc! f (λ () 2))
(f)
I guess my bigger question is whether making everything redefinable is
really the best mechanism to achieve what you want. I would bet that, even
in your example, you don't usually want to dynamically redefine cons or +.
I think it would probably be better to be explicit about where you want to
allow redefinition and where you want identifiers to refer to a specific
binding.
If I were thinking about "a multiplayer game … where you could change the
world while players are in it without kicking them out," I might think
about a current-world parameter that can be mutated and having certain
functions consult the current-world. Using the class-based object system or
racket/generic for the world value might be particularly suitable. (Of
course, the details would depend on exactly what about the world you want
to be able to change.)
-Philip
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Christopher Lemmer Webber <
cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote:
> Hi Sam! I wasn't familiar with racket/load and it seems neat.
> But it either seems too hopeless, or not hopeless enough:
>
> Since all forms within a racket/load module are evaluated in the top
> level, bindings cannot be exported from the module using provide.
>
> This seems like a bit too much unfortunately. If I were to be writing
> for instance a web application or a game or what have you, I'd still
> want the dynamism of being able to redefine things, but I'd also want to
> be able to export things from a module.
>
> Maybe here's a properly hopeless level of indirection? What if we had
> something like a lambda-box that for toplevel definitions of functions
> instead wrapped the function in a box. It can still be invoked, but if
> redefined, the contents of the box could be swapped out with a new
> function? That's not too far off from how Guile's redefining works
> presently, if I understand right. Redefining a toplevel non-function
> could just set! the variable.
>
> I guess maybe you couldn't provide more than what you've already
> provided from the module. But that's probably okay?
>
>
> Sam Tobin-Hochstadt writes:
>
> > You might find the racket/load language useful for this.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 12:49 PM Christopher Lemmer Webber <
> > cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Just curious. I have my reasons... for instance, I wrote a multiplayer
> >> game in Guile where you could change the world while players are in it
> >> without kicking them out. I don't think you can do that while having a
> >> toplevel that's as fixed as Racket's is.
> >>
> >> I've read the emails from Matthew Flatt about "the toplevel is
> >> hopeless". So the question is... how hard would it be to support
> >> "#lang hopeless"? :) A language for the toplevel!
> >>
> >> Maybe the toplevel is generally hopeless, but those of us who wish to
> >> live in a world of despair can happily still have it.
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> >> "Racket Users" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an
> >> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
