Is Typed Racket able to prove that your use of unsafe accessors is actually safe?
Robby On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Dominik Pantůček < dominik.pantu...@trustica.cz> wrote: > > On 21. 12. 20 18:07, David Storrs wrote: > > <self-plug> > > The struct-plus-plus module also provides reflection, so you might take > > a look to see if there are any ideas in there that would be useful for > > your own module. Accessors are included, as are constructors, rules, > > wrappers, default values, and predicates. spp has two primary > > limitations: You cannot use a base type and you cannot mark individual > > fields mutable, only the entire struct. > Nice one! The per-field #:mutable keyword was one of the things that > made me look into it more :) > > I will look into the sources and some of the ideas there will help me > implement it in a cleaner way. That said, I am mostly interested in > providing the unsafe accessors/mutators transparently. > > > Cheers, > Dominik > > -- > 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. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/19db4267-edd6-6eea-778d-8b15643789a1%40trustica.cz > . > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL3TdOPFRE5tDp_ceyTTBOQ4B3xnNRWnXJGtF%3D0ACA9_J4Hchw%40mail.gmail.com.
