On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 1:06:15 PM UTC-4, Alexis King wrote: > > At this point, though it is indisputably evil, it seems more feasible > to use some name mangling scheme than to expand to a submodule. That > would be, of course, deeply unsatisfying, so I would very much like to > have a better solution. >
Maybe do undisputedly?-evil name-mangling now to get things working, then become a saint with a better solution down the road. Sometimes I don't realize how to do something the "good" way until I've traveled down the path of doing it some less than good way, then the "good" way reveals itself early one morning or late one night, when I least expect it. 30 years ago C++ had ugly name mangling, until that ugly part of C++ went away 5-10 years later. The non-mangling way did not reveal itself at first. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
