Re: [racket-dev] safe version of racket/unsafe/ops?

2010-09-28 Thread Robby Findler
You could put all the requires into one file and then re-export things? (At least for now.) Also, you can end up exporting too much, ie unsafe-call-with-current-continuation :). Robby On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:20 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:14 PM,

[racket-dev] safe version of racket/unsafe/ops?

2010-09-27 Thread John Clements
I'm sure I'm just missing something obvious here, but is there a library that provides things like unsafe-vector-length that are actually references to the safe versions? I have a core dump occurring in (someone else's) unsafe code, and I'd much rather just import a different library than go

Re: [racket-dev] safe version of racket/unsafe/ops?

2010-09-27 Thread Jay McCarthy
In principle I think it is a good idea, though I expect me and others will quibble over any name you pick. Jay On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: I'm sure I'm just missing something obvious here, but is there a library that provides things like

Re: [racket-dev] safe version of racket/unsafe/ops?

2010-09-27 Thread Robby Findler
How about prefix-in with unsafe- as the prefix? Robby On Monday, September 27, 2010, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote: I'm sure I'm just missing something obvious here, but is there a library that provides things like unsafe-vector-length that are actually references to the

Re: [racket-dev] safe version of racket/unsafe/ops?

2010-09-27 Thread John Clements
On Sep 27, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Robby Findler wrote: How about prefix-in with unsafe- as the prefix? You still have to specify the right set of functions, right? But yes, that's all I'm thinking of. John smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature