[racket] Full command line arguments

11 hours ago, Laurent wrote:
> 
> About sandboxes and custodians, this is also a nice and pure Racket
> solution, but I'm a bit worried about the memory (and other?)
> overhead that this might incur.  Is this doubt justified?

A sandbox can be relatively expensive, but it should definitely be
much cheaper than a new process.

Also, bear in mind that the code snippet that Tony showed is very
partial: Racket has lots of OS-like features that need to be done to
get a more complete separation of the sandboxed environment, and his
code only some of that.  The sandbox library is, roughly speaking, a
place to put all of the required features together.  And if you're
worried about size -- one thing that you can do with namespaces is
share module instantiations so that you only get "billed" for them
once, and you can do that for both modules that you require, and for
your own modules if there is no harm in sharing state between
different sandboxes.  (Setting up such sharing can be a little tricky,
but with the sandbox library you can easily do that with the
`sandbox-namespace-specs' parameter.)

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!