[plt-dev] performance-oriented unsafe operations (v4.2.1.8)

I will do that.

One other thing that is really just semantics. Would it be better to call
the operations 'unchecked-<whatever>' instead of 'unsafe-<whatever>'?
Generally, we are calling the function because we know it is safe to avoid
some constraint check - not because it is unsafe. Just a nit.

Doug

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Matthew Flatt<mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> > At Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:22:34 -0600, Doug Williams wrote:
> >> I assume that if I use these and introduce a dependency on 4.2.2 or
> later
> >> that I should also bump the version number of the science collection in
> >> PLaneT - even if the interface remains the same. Does that make sense?
> >
> > No, I think you wouldn't change the major version, since there's no API
> > change.
>
> You would, however, add a constraint that the latest version of the
> science collection depends on 4.2.2 and so people using 4.2.1 (and
> lower) wouldn't see that new version.
>
> Robby
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20090906/9d950664/attachment.html>