I haven’t actually used it myself, but Tony Garnock-Jones’s
racket-reloadable library seems interesting and relevant.
https://github.com/tonyg/racket-reloadable
Alexis
> On Mar 21, 2018, at 11:16, Christopher Lemmer Webber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Sam! I wasn't familiar with racket/load and it seems neat. But
> it either seems too hopeless, or not hopeless enough:
>
> Since all forms within a racket/load module are evaluated in the top
> level, bindings cannot be exported from the module using provide.
>
> This seems like a bit too much unfortunately. If I were to be writing
> for instance a web application or a game or what have you, I'd still
> want the dynamism of being able to redefine things, but I'd also want
> to be able to export things from a module.
>
> Maybe here's a properly hopeless level of indirection? What if we had
> something like a lambda-box that for toplevel definitions of functions
> instead wrapped the function in a box. It can still be invoked, but
> if redefined, the contents of the box could be swapped out with a new
> function? That's not too far off from how Guile's redefining works
> presently, if I understand right. Redefining a toplevel non-function
> could just set! the variable.
>
> I guess maybe you couldn't provide more than what you've already
> provided from the module. But that's probably okay?
--
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
