Unsafe operations are usually defined externally, like in a C extension,
where safety is harder to guarantee and module hierarchies are less
idiomatic. The "unsafe" moniker is a standard warning that you are
responsible for understanding the underlying implementation and calling
into it
I think that documentation fix is a good idea. More broadly, it seems
awkward that all of the unsafe ops for different data types are combined
together into a single module. I would instead expect there to be modules
like racket/fixnum/unsafe, racket/struct/unsafe, racket/vector/unsafe, etc.
Hello,
the documentation at https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/fixnums.html
is misleading at best. If you - as I did - use the suggested approach of
requiring optimized (and unsafe) fx... operations from racket/unsafe/ops
with:
(require (filtered-in
(λ (name) (regexp-replace
I'm pleased to announce
Racketfest 2020
February 27, 2020
Berlin, Germany
https://racketfest.com
We've got a great lineup of fantastic speakers, with multiple Racket topics
represented. The 2020 edition will again be a one-day affair, this time in
three parts:
* talks (we all know
4 matches
Mail list logo
