On Jul 28, 2011 7:26 AM, "Noel Welsh" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones
wrote:
>
> > Would it be fair to say that were such a thing to come into existence,
> > the VM would need to be changed as part of that work?
>
> There is nothing you can't do with a brave heart a
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> I was recently telling some people that I thought 'Ruby on Rails' was
> mostly an ORM plus a set of default dispatching rules with convenient
> ways of extending the defaults.
I agree, though I don't have much RoR experience. However, that is
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> Would it be fair to say that were such a thing to come into existence,
> the VM would need to be changed as part of that work?
There is nothing you can't do with a brave heart and a disassembler.
In other words, I've occasionally thoug
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> On 2011-07-27 4:17 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> No such alchemy exists, it's just intended as part of the conceptual
>> framework.
>
> Would it be fair to say that were such a thing to come into existence,
> the VM would need to be
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
>> On 2011-07-27 4:01 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>> If you have a sufficiently powerful inspector, you can traverse any
>>> structure. In principle, you can even traverse
On 2011-07-27 4:17 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> No such alchemy exists, it's just intended as part of the conceptual
> framework.
Would it be fair to say that were such a thing to come into existence,
the VM would need to be changed as part of that work?
> No, `struct->vector' uses the chape
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> On 2011-07-27 4:01 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> If you have a sufficiently powerful inspector, you can traverse any
>> structure. In principle, you can even traverse closures this way, but
>> no inspector with the needed power exis
On 2011-07-27 4:01 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> If you have a sufficiently powerful inspector, you can traverse any
> structure. In principle, you can even traverse closures this way, but
> no inspector with the needed power exists. See `struct->vector'.
That sounds fantastic! Especially the
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
> On 2011-07-26 1:20 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> I don't have a lot of expertise on the ORM side, but I think Snooze
>> would probably be awesome and my MongoDB-backed structs may be helpful
>> too.
>
> Is there a way of generically traver
On 2011-07-26 1:20 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> I don't have a lot of expertise on the ORM side, but I think Snooze
> would probably be awesome and my MongoDB-backed structs may be helpful
> too.
Is there a way of generically traversing all structure in a completely
privileged way in Racket, without
I was recently telling some people that I thought 'Ruby on Rails' was
mostly an ORM plus a set of default dispatching rules with convenient
ways of extending the defaults.
I don't have a lot of expertise on the ORM side, but I think Snooze
would probably be awesome and my MongoDB-backed structs ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
