Everyone rolling their own is bad. We want people to contract their code, and
they don't want to always pay for the overhead. #2 sounds the best, since that
could be again abstracted over by the user, this time with one line instead of
the sevel it takes to implement provide-cond-contract. This
Right now, in the Typed Racket implementation, there's forms like this:
(provide-cond-contract [foo foo?])
Option #2 would be something like this:
(provide (cond-contract-out enable-contracts? [foo foo?]))
and everywhere has to reference the `enable-contracts?' identifier.
I'm not convinced
How about we write a define-toggle-contract-out form, so everyone
can define their own without actually implementing their own.
Something like so:
(define-toggle-contract-out my-contract-out #:disable) ;; comment out
keyword to enable
(provide (my-contract-out [thing thing/c]))
Carl Eastlund
On
That's the best solution I've come up with, which is basically the
abstraction I suggested under #4.
sam th
On Sunday, September 25, 2011, Carl Eastlund wrote:
How about we write a define-toggle-contract-out form, so everyone
can define their own without actually implementing their own.
IMO, a better approach for disabling contracts is to have the client
decide whether it wants the contracted version or the plain one --
which is a rough mirror of how unsafe operations are done (with the
choice being made by requiring one file or another). Then, there
could be a facility that
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
IMO, a better approach for disabling contracts is to have the client
decide whether it wants the contracted version or the plain one --
which is a rough mirror of how unsafe operations are done (with the
choice being made
In Whalesong, I've been watching where the compile-time is going,
because I want to make it more pleasant to use. When I compile hello
world, it takes about three seconds to complete the compile on my
machine.
Out of a lark, I wanted to see what the base-line was for just loading
up the modules
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Danny Yoo d...@cs.wpi.edu wrote:
[snip TR taking a long time to load]
Is that something that's supposed to happen? I guess I'm just trying
to understand the repercussions of requiring a module from Typed
Racket into regular Racket.
This looks a little worse
An hour and a half ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
IMO, a better approach for disabling contracts is to have the
client decide whether it wants the contracted version or the plain
one -- which is a rough mirror of how
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
An hour and a half ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
IMO, a better approach for disabling contracts is to have the
client decide whether it wants the
Danny Yoo wrote at 09/25/2011 09:24 PM:
I'm observing about a 100ms cost here for something that I expected to
be a no-op, because the module has already been required.
You think you could be taking a small GC hit then? PLTSTDERR=debug
environment variable might show GC info. Or add
11 matches
Mail list logo
