Is Typed Racket able to prove that your use of unsafe accessors is actually safe?
Robby On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Dominik Pantůček < [email protected]> wrote: > > On 21. 12. 20 18:07, David Storrs wrote: > > <self-plug> > > The struct-plus-plus module also provides reflection, so you might take > > a look to see if there are any ideas in there that would be useful for > > your own module. Accessors are included, as are constructors, rules, > > wrappers, default values, and predicates. spp has two primary > > limitations: You cannot use a base type and you cannot mark individual > > fields mutable, only the entire struct. > Nice one! The per-field #:mutable keyword was one of the things that > made me look into it more :) > > I will look into the sources and some of the ideas there will help me > implement it in a cleaner way. That said, I am mostly interested in > providing the unsafe accessors/mutators transparently. > > > Cheers, > Dominik > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/19db4267-edd6-6eea-778d-8b15643789a1%40trustica.cz > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL3TdOPFRE5tDp_ceyTTBOQ4B3xnNRWnXJGtF%3D0ACA9_J4Hchw%40mail.gmail.com.
