That sounds difficult. On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Eric Dobson <<a href="mailto:eric.n.dobson@gmail.com">eric.n.dobson@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Also this is a poor solution for me because `raco make` compiles all the dependencies serially. I have also tried doing 'raco setup -D' for the packages I am dependent on but that has the issue of compiling everything in those packages which is over kill (and thus slower than needed). My end goal is a very fast edit/test loop (~100ms), which may be impossible but I want to be aggressive. On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Robby Findler <<a>robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote: > Yes, Sam. I don't think anyone is happy with the status quo. > > Perhaps the tradeoffs have changed since last time a careful investigation > happened. > > Robby > > > On Saturday, April 5, 2014, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <<a>samth@cs.indiana.edu</a>> > wrote: >> >> I don't think this is a good answer for Racket. Certainly the docs >> don't say that you need to always do this if you want your program to >> work right. If Racket doesn't work right in the presence of stale >> compiled filed, then it should just error in those cases, rather than >> doing the wrong thing. Of course it would be better to work correctly >> in that case, but this is a hard problem, and it's reasonable to not >> have a solution. But having the system act like it works when it >> doesn't is worse. >> >> Sam >> >> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Robby Findler >> <<a>robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote: >> > raco make x.rkt && racket x.rkt >> > >> > Robby >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Eric Dobson <<a>eric.n.dobson@gmail.com</a>> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Great that explains it and with that information I was able to >> >> simplify my test case to >> >> >> >> tmp.rkt >> >> #lang racket >> >> >> >> (require "tmp2.rkt") >> >> >> >> (define-syntax (go stx) >> >> (foo)) >> >> >> >> (go) >> >> >> >> tmp2.rkt >> >> #lang racket >> >> >> >> (provide (for-syntax foo)) >> >> >> >> (begin-for-syntax >> >> (define (foo) #'3)) >> >> >> >> So now the question is how do I run my code so as to not be bit by >> >> this? I want a command to run my program that is both fast to run and >> >> correct with regards to my source. My previous assumption was that the >> >> zo file's logic was safe if I wasn't trying to break it but I now know >> >> better. Is my only option to either always compile or never compile? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Matthew Flatt <<a>mflatt@cs.utah.edu</a>> >> >> wrote: >> >> > If I understand the question: >> >> > >> >> > * With 34c3eed615, "pr12644.rkt" can compile and run. >> >> > >> >> > * With d29df205f7, "pr12644.rkt" fails to compile. >> >> > >> >> > * A bytecode form of "pr12644.rkt" compiled with 34c3eed615 can >> >> > still >> >> > run in d29df205f7, because run-time support for "pr12644.rkt" >> >> > didn't >> >> > change. >> >> > >> >> > * When you tell `racket` to run "pr12644.rkt", it will use a ".zo" >> >> > for >> >> > each of "pr12644.rkt" and its dependencies as long each individual >> >> > ".zo" file has a newer timestamp than its ".rkt" file. That is, >> >> > the >> >> > only timestamp comparisons are on individual ".rkt" and ".zo" >> >> > pairs. >> >> > >> >> > * When you tell `raco make` to build "pr12644.rkt", it checks >> >> > dependencies (via ".dep" file) and compares a ".rkt" file's >> >> > timestamp against the times of all of its dependencies, instead of >> >> > just checking individual ".rkt" and ".zo" pairs. That's why a<</blockquote>