Thanks kindly... Greg Hendershott pointed me at this before too. It may be that in the cases where you do know in advance what layers need to be more hackable and which don't that this is a good fit. It looks like it would serve the webdev case well enough at least.
Alexis King writes: > 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 >> <cweb...@dustycloud.org> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
