Although I don't think I currently /need/ a streaming parser for speed
or space reasons, I can imagine using one.
I'd suggest making something where the user supplies an "on-element"
"callback", which is called with each element -- plus the "path" of
ancestor elements. The user's callback can do
In addition to the other suggestions, if you can express the thing you
want to generate as a contract, the contract library will generate
random instances of it. But it doesn't have the tuning of weights
you're looking for.
Robby
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:41 PM Eric Eide wrote:
>
> Ryan Kramer
If anyone has a use for a *streaming* permissive HTML parser (i.e., one
that calls your specific bits of code while it's parsing, rather than it
constructing some kind of representation of the entire page for your
code to process afterwards), I'd be interested in what specifically
you'd like
Ryan Kramer writes:
> Does Racket have any grammar-based fuzzing utilities?
You might be interested in Xsmith. Version 1.0 will be released imminently,
like within the next week. I'll send another email when it's released.
Stay tuned!
--
`redex-check` is what you want. If it isn't exactly what you need,
then `data/enumerate` will help you build what you need very easily.
--
Jay McCarthy
Associate Professor @ CS @ UMass Lowell
http://jeapostrophe.github.io
Vincit qui se vincit.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:21 PM Ryan Kramer wrote:
>
Does Racket have any grammar-based fuzzing utilities? I'm probably going to
play around with this either way, but if there is an existing solution I'll
quit after I've had my fun. If, however, people think Racket could use
something like this I may attempt to make it into a usable package.
I'm
Cool. Thanks, Jay.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:25 PM Jay McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:16 PM David Storrs
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jay McCarthy
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Your code is passing bytes by value, but bytes are themselves
>>> pointers, so you are
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:16 PM David Storrs wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jay McCarthy
> wrote:
>
>> Your code is passing bytes by value, but bytes are themselves
>> pointers, so you are passing copies of the pointer, not copies of the
>> bytes. When you modify it, with
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jay McCarthy wrote:
> Your code is passing bytes by value, but bytes are themselves
> pointers, so you are passing copies of the pointer, not copies of the
> bytes. When you modify it, with `bytes-set!` you are modifying the
> underlying structure. When you copy
Your code is passing bytes by value, but bytes are themselves
pointers, so you are passing copies of the pointer, not copies of the
bytes. When you modify it, with `bytes-set!` you are modifying the
underlying structure. When you copy it with `subbytes` or
`bytes-copy`, you are making a new object
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:00 PM David Storrs wrote:
> My understanding is that Racket is call by value, not call by reference.
> My application will often be passing around large-ish byte strings; will
> they be copied every time I pass them, or will the interpreter use
> copy-on-write?
>
My understanding is that Racket is call by value, not call by reference.
My application will often be passing around large-ish byte strings; will
they be copied every time I pass them, or will the interpreter use
copy-on-write?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:52 AM, Eric Griffis wrote:
> Several times now, I've run into one or another form of the following problem:
>
> Say I want to build primitives to
>
> declare an "interface" as a list of names, and
> implement and use those names at run time in a limited scope
The
13 matches
Mail list logo
