Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21156: master branch updated
On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > An hour ago, John Clements wrote: >> >> On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: >> >>> Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names >>> is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need >>> for a library. >> >> Sure, I don't feel strongly about it. Done. > > Thanks(!) > > I should have clarified further -- what we have at the momemt is a > consisten use of an "unsafe" part in the path for potentially > segfaulting functionality. So having some unsafe/safe thing doesn't > make much sense (and begs the question about undebugging some things > with unsafe/safe/unsafe). > > In any case, I think that something that would have made you happier > is for the `unsafe/foo' libraries to provide the same name as the safe > ones. This way you'd only need to toggle the `unsafe/' prefix on or > off. (I'd like that change too, but we're probably deep enough in the > current setup to change that...) I thought about this, but I really like the current setup, where the unsafe-ness must be indicated at the use of the function. I think this is especially true of common primitives like "vector-length". If I were debugging a piece of code, it would never occur to me that an ordinary-looking call to 'vector-length' might actually be unsafe. > > >> To be clear, my use case is this: I'm trying to debug a seg fault in >> a large library, with >500 uses of 'unsafe-' operators. I want to >> see whether using the corresponding safe variants eliminates the >> crash. The global search and replace is a bit of a pain; replacing >> racket/unsafe/ops with racket/unsafe/safe-ops is much easier. >> >> Naturally, though, you can always roll your own as needed. > > First, I think that what was suggested earlier should work -- changing > this: > > (require unsafe/foo) > -> > (require (prefix-in unsafe- foo)) This doesn't work for (require racket/unsafe/ops); that's why I wanted to add it. > > But the more common use case (which I've done in a number of places) > is to use `foo' first, make sure the code runs and write a ton of > tests, then turn the require into one that *drops* the `unsafe-' > prefix. This frightens me, for the reasons I describe above. > > A slightly different approach is in `racket/private/sort' -- define > names that are used throughout, and switch the definition from a safe > one to an unsafe one. That sounds like what you described before, though perhaps I'm not understanding you. John smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21156: master branch updated
An hour ago, John Clements wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > > Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names > > is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need > > for a library. > > Sure, I don't feel strongly about it. Done. Thanks(!) I should have clarified further -- what we have at the momemt is a consisten use of an "unsafe" part in the path for potentially segfaulting functionality. So having some unsafe/safe thing doesn't make much sense (and begs the question about undebugging some things with unsafe/safe/unsafe). In any case, I think that something that would have made you happier is for the `unsafe/foo' libraries to provide the same name as the safe ones. This way you'd only need to toggle the `unsafe/' prefix on or off. (I'd like that change too, but we're probably deep enough in the current setup to change that...) > To be clear, my use case is this: I'm trying to debug a seg fault in > a large library, with >500 uses of 'unsafe-' operators. I want to > see whether using the corresponding safe variants eliminates the > crash. The global search and replace is a bit of a pain; replacing > racket/unsafe/ops with racket/unsafe/safe-ops is much easier. > > Naturally, though, you can always roll your own as needed. First, I think that what was suggested earlier should work -- changing this: (require unsafe/foo) -> (require (prefix-in unsafe- foo)) But the more common use case (which I've done in a number of places) is to use `foo' first, make sure the code runs and write a ton of tests, then turn the require into one that *drops* the `unsafe-' prefix. A slightly different approach is in `racket/private/sort' -- define names that are used throughout, and switch the definition from a safe one to an unsafe one. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21156: master branch updated
On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names > is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need > for a library. Sure, I don't feel strongly about it. Done. To be clear, my use case is this: I'm trying to debug a seg fault in a large library, with >500 uses of 'unsafe-' operators. I want to see whether using the corresponding safe variants eliminates the crash. The global search and replace is a bit of a pain; replacing racket/unsafe/ops with racket/unsafe/safe-ops is much easier. Naturally, though, you can always roll your own as needed. John smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature _ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21156: master branch updated
Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need for a library. In addition, the usual way things went so far was to write safe code, and then "turn on" unsafely by adding requires with dropping the prefix, or do it locally by adding `unsafe-'. Now the development line would be to start safely, then add unsafe, then to debug you add this other unsafe thing which is really not unsafe. 7 minutes ago, cleme...@racket-lang.org wrote: > collects/racket/unsafe/safe-ops.rkt > ~~~ > --- /dev/null > +++ NEW/collects/racket/unsafe/safe-ops.rkt > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ > +#lang racket > + > +(require racket/fixnum > + racket/flonum) > + > + > +;; the point of this file is to provide functions that are labeled > +;; as unsafe but are actually safe. This provides an easy means to > +;; disable unsafety; a require of racket/unsafe/ops can be replaced > +;; with a require of racket/unsafe/safe-ops. > + > +;; this list is almost certainly incomplete; I feel partially justified > +;; in adding it to the tree anyhow because > +;; a) it's easy to extend, and > +;; b) it appears to me (based on the require of #%unsafe in the corresponding > +;; 'ops' library) that determining the full set of functions will require > +;; mucking around in the C source, and not being very confident about > +;; my conclusions. > + > + > +(provide (prefix-out unsafe- (all-from-out racket/fixnum)) > + (prefix-out unsafe- (all-from-out racket/flonum)) > + (prefix-out unsafe- (combine-out vector-length > + vector-ref > + vector-set!))) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
