Can't you just delete the whole second binding for accs?
Sam
On Jul 3, 2014 8:11 PM, "Jens Axel Søgaard" wrote:
> Thanks to all for the advice. It seems the following version of match
> works for Whalesong:
>
> https://github.com/soegaard/whalesong-libs
>
> Admitted I have only made superfic
Thanks to all for the advice. It seems the following version of match
works for Whalesong:
https://github.com/soegaard/whalesong-libs
Admitted I have only made superfical tests.
In match/compiler.rkt I replaced
(define (gen-clause k rows x xs esc)
<...>
;; it's a structure
[(box?
The output of `match` when it uses `unsafe-struct-ref` can't be
faithfully implemented safely. In particular, `match` has access to
the accessor function, which may give you results that you can't get
from safe reflection such as `struct->vector`.
Instead, I think you should just implement `unsafe
Would `struct->vector' + `vector-ref' work?
Vincent
At Wed, 2 Jul 2014 21:06:50 +0200,
Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>
> Is it possible to implement unsafe-struct-ref using safe constructs only?
>
> The reason behind this peculiar question, is that I am porting racket/match
> to Whalesong. The matc
ure how not-bad the
corresponding unsafe-struct-ref would be :P
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: "J. Ian Johnson"
To: "Jens Axel Søgaard"
Cc: "racket"
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:15:25 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket] A safe version
cking.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Axel Søgaard"
To: "racket"
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:06:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [racket] A safe version of unsafe-struct-ref [for Whalesong]
Is it possible to implement unsafe-struct-ref using safe con
Is it possible to implement unsafe-struct-ref using safe constructs only?
The reason behind this peculiar question, is that I am porting racket/match
to Whalesong. The match compiler uses various unsafe constructs that Whalesong
doesn't implement. It is straightforward to replace, say,
unsafe-vect
7 matches
Mail list logo
