I think Racket handles this pretty well. The rule it defines is that a module
cannot directly mutate another module's top-level symbols. This means that if a
module itself does not contain any mutations of a top-level function, that
definition cannot be changed at runtime. Therefore, everyone ca
Hi,
Racket seems to depricate redefinition of functions at run-time. Since
Racket isn't Scheme, why not prevent that and get back that performance?
-Arthur
==
Arthur Nunes-Harwitt
Computer Science Department, Rochester Institute o
On 8/13/2018 10:02 AM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users wrote
On 11/08/18 19:41, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> There are basically two differences between the `unsafe-lsb` function
> in Racket and the C one:
> - the Racket calling convention vs the C calling convention
> - the instruction used t
On 11/08/18 19:41, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> There are basically two differences between the `unsafe-lsb` function
> in Racket and the C one:
> - the Racket calling convention vs the C calling convention
> - the instruction used to perform the LSB calculation
>
> For a variety of reasons R
There are basically two differences between the `unsafe-lsb` function
in Racket and the C one:
- the Racket calling convention vs the C calling convention
- the instruction used to perform the LSB calculation
For a variety of reasons Racket's function calling convention is more
heavyweight than
5 matches
Mail list logo
