Definitely. Using Racket's hashes, I can duplicate the same functionality.
But this hash mechanism bothers me, because I see a informal convention developing in Rack middleware, where the middleware starts injecting it's own state into the hash, with hacky namespaces on the keys to prevent key collisions. I would like to avoid that. Just wondering if anyone had an alternative suggestion. -- Chad Albers On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Danny Yoo <d...@hashcollision.org> wrote: > > > In the Rack middleware in the chain, each piece of the middleware > > receives a > > hash which encapsulates the response/requests, and the middleware > > mutates > > this hash depending on the functionality it adds. > > Could each middleware layer return the updated hash value? Racket has > functional hash tables alongside mutable ones. > > > http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/hashtables.html#(def._((quote._~23~25kernel)._hash-set)) ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
