[racket-dev] Release for v5.0.2 has begun

The new case-> only supports simple contracts, that's right. If you
have more complex ones that it would be helpful to support (and can
share them), that would help us guide our efforts.

Thanks,
Robby

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Doug Williams
<m.douglas.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> The main problem I'm having is that the code has been around awhile and
> hasn't been fully converted to Racket - in particular it uses the scheme
> language (instead of the racket language) and uses (require (lib contract)).
> All of that seems to mean that I can't just add #:flat? #t - I get a message
> that vector-of doesn't accept keyword arguments. And, the case-> contracts
> use ->r, which apparently isn't supported anymore. All that means that I
> can't just switch to the racket language and new contracts.  So, I have some
> conversion work to do.
>
> On the case-> problem, it seems it no longer supports anything but ->.  Is
> there something I am missing there?
>
> Doug
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>
>> At Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:31:43 -0600, Doug Williams wrote:
>> > Matthew, would it make more sense to have unsafe-vector-ref (and related
>> > functions) be the more general function and unsafe-vector*-ref be the
>> > one
>> > that doesn't work  on chaperoned vectors? That is just swap the
>> > definitions.
>> > That way user code that is already using unsafe-vector-ref (etc) will
>> > continue to work.
>> >
>> > As it stands, existing code that has unsafe-vector-ref (etc) will often
>> > still work (in the sense of not getting any error or crashing), but just
>> > gives the wrong results. For example, if you run science-test.ss from
>> > the
>> > examples directory in the science collection, there are no errors. But,
>> > some
>> > of the answers are wrong - for example the very first one, the gamma
>> > function. [In other cases, like the FFT routines, there are either
>> > run-time
>> > errors or crashes.]
>> >
>> > Anyway, if it isn't too late, I think swapping the definitions would
>> > make
>> > more sense and be safer.
>>
>> I've gone back and forth. I agree that it would be safer, but
>> `vector-ref' is safer still, and I think of the job of `unsafe-X' as
>> providing the lowest possible overhead over `X'. It seems nicer to me
>> to have `*' mean "somewhere in between" rather than "even faster". Then
>> again, it seems bad that `vector?' (plus index bounds) isn't enough to
>> guard `unsafe-vector-ref'.
>>
>> Overall, at this point in the release cycle, I'm inclined to leave
>> things where they are (i.e., it may be too late). But let's hear more
>> opinions from those who use `unsafe-vector-ref' and
>> unsafe-vector*-ref'.
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>