On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 10:25:36 PM UTC-4 Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:46 PM Jonathan Simpson wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-4 Robby Findler wrote:
> >>
> >> Replacing ` (~r x #:precision 1)` with `(number->string x)` and ditto
> for
A little more information about these things.
I'd say that there are two obstacles to having the racket/contract library
actually be the source of the contract checks in all functions exported by
the racket language/library:
1) dependency layering. The racket/contract library is really a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:04 PM Jonathan Simpson wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 10:25:36 PM UTC-4 Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:46 PM Jonathan Simpson wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-4 Robby Findler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Replacing `
Thanks Sam, Robby. Your explanations make perfect sense. I was conflating
contract exceptions with the contract library. I had just assumed they were
one and the same. Avoiding the contract library for performance reasons in
some cases also seems quite reasonable to me.
Thanks again!
--
On 2021-06-28 21:18, Alessandro Motta wrote:> One thing that is still puzzling
/ worrying me: I completely failed to
> identify the actual bottleneck when profiling the code.
>
> Did I simply misinterpret the profiling output / flame graph? Or is the
> problem rather that memory allocations and
5 matches
Mail list logo
