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

In this case, I prefer having a nice, ugly name with something like unsafe
or unchecked in it. And, I want it at the point the unsafe/unchecked
operation is being done. For production code, it's important for whoever
wants to understand (i.e., maintain) it later to know the intent and its
implications. Changing between them (generally) should not be a trivial
decision.

Doug

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe it's better to keep the very same name as the safe operation,
> and let whoever imports it choose a different prefix. The immediate
> benefit is that switching from safe to unsafe becomes trivial, which
> is great for developing and testing in safe mode but delivering and
> running in unsafe mode.
>
> What will be interesting is to see if TypedScheme modules allow to
> squeeze extra performance by expanding to unsafe operations.
>
> [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics |
> http://fare.tunes.org ]
> If it's not worth doing right, it's not worth doing. -- Scott McKay
>
>
>
>
> 2009/9/7 Carl Eastlund <carl.eastlund at gmail.com>:
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Doug
> > Williams<m.douglas.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> One other thing that is really just semantics.
> >
> > Actually, that's just syntax.  ;)
> >
> > On this list, semantics is the important stuff.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > --Carl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20090907/1a9099e2/attachment.html>