On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>
> * Exception handling changed to be safe. This may break existing
> programs that rely on unsafe behavior.
>
> * Casts and predicates are supported in typed regions.
I think these two bullets (esp the first one) need to make clear that
t
The release announcement sketch that I have so far is below. Please
mail me new items and/or edits.
--
Racket version 6.1.1 is now available from
http://racket-lang.org/
* Mac OS X Yosemite: fixed compatibility problems, m
Reviewing the git logs, it looks like I made a mistake (according to
commit b192620b0d1c26773167c6afa14ceb6303588591), and that it's
actually the docs that are wrong. Sorry. Fixing it now.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:33 PM, wrote:
> stchang has updated `master' from 3d2fdbc8cf to 40422d35d3.
> h
Sam: can you elaborate on precisely what the hole was? In particular,
if there are any safe programs that the type system now rejects, I'd
be in favor of a slightly different wording.
Robby
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Ryan Culpep
There were two holes.
1. We allowed exception handlers to assume that they received values
of type `exn`, even when that wasn't right.
2. We allowed typed programs to throw arbitrary values, which means
that you could throw a typed function to an untyped handler, which
could then misuse it.
Both
Yes, that's what I mean. I don't think that the sentence "This may
break existing programs that rely on unsafe behavior." is accurate.
How about "This may break existing programs." or "Closing this hole
requires us to disallow some programs that do not signal runtime
errors." or something like that
I prefer the second sentence I sent to either of those. Fundamentally
I think it is reasonable for the sentence to be slightly apologetic.
There was a problem, we fixed it, but the fix may require some pain of
our users. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just a fact of life.
No shame in hiding
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Yes, that's what I mean. I don't think that the sentence "This may
> break existing programs that rely on unsafe behavior." is accurate.
> How about "This may break existing programs." or "Closing this hole
> requires us to disallow some prog
The reason I don't like the second sentence you wrote is that it's
true of every type system everywhere. And also, the more significant
change for users will almost certainly be the first one (it's required
changes to several packages already) -- almost no one raises anything
that isn't an exn, and
Here's another idea:
* To ensure safety, Typed Racket now prohibits raising any values
other than exns and simple flat data. Some existing programs may now
have type errors because of this.
Sam
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> The reason I don't like the second sent
1. Can we please, pretty please, drop these "now"s from every single sentence?
2. I think this is close to what we may wish to say. Here is a small edit:
* Typed Racket closes a safety hole due to the types for the
exception system. The revised type system restricts raise so
that only ins
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> 1. Can we please, pretty please, drop these "now"s from every single sentence?
>
> 2. I think this is close to what we may wish to say. Here is a small edit:
>
> * Typed Racket closes a safety hole due to the types for the
> exceptio
I’m putting large s-expressions as properties on syntax objects. When I
display them in the right pane of the syntax browser, they go way off the side
of the pane. I’d like to be able to pretty-print the values of properties.
I can’t figure out how to insert pretty-print into the property disp
properly -> corresponding fashion?
Otherwise fine
On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Can we please, pretty please, drop these "now"s from every single
>> sentence?
>>
>> 2. I think this is close
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> properly -> corresponding fashion?
No, it's a different change (the one I numbered 1. in my first message).
Sam
>
> Otherwise fine
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:42 PM,
I don't think that "it's true of every type system everywhere" is a
good rationale for not owning backwards-incompatible changes (even
when they are "good" backwards incompatible changes, as this one
certainly is). I do agree with you, however, that what is especially
bad is requiring changes to "w
16 matches
Mail list logo
