define-macro: check that ... only follow wildcards

Conversation 1 Commits 1 Files Changed 2

bennn commented (Migrated from github.com)

One fix for #9

mbutterick commented (Migrated from github.com)

LGTM 🤘

LGTM :metal:

bennn (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

beautiful-racket-lib/br/private/generate-literals.rkt

													
				@ -19,2 +34,4 @@

				    #true))

				(module+ test

				  (require rackunit)

bennn (Migrated from github.com) commented

Oops, this comment shoudn't be here

mbutterick (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

beautiful-racket-lib/br/private/generate-literals.rkt

													
				@ -19,2 +34,4 @@

				    #true))

				(module+ test

				  (require rackunit)

mbutterick (Migrated from github.com) commented

BTW, what is the reason to use box and set!-box to mutate prev-datum rather than just mutating the variable itself?

BTW, what is the reason to use `box` and `set!-box` to mutate `prev-datum` rather than just mutating the variable itself?

bennn (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

beautiful-racket-lib/br/private/generate-literals.rkt

													
				@ -19,2 +34,4 @@

				    #true))

				(module+ test

				  (require rackunit)

bennn (Migrated from github.com) commented

I'm prejudiced against set!. I like box to communicate my intentions.

But this is your code so you should do what you want.

I'm prejudiced against `set!`. I like `box` to communicate my intentions. But this is your code so you should do what you want.

mbutterick (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

beautiful-racket-lib/br/private/generate-literals.rkt

													
				@ -19,2 +34,4 @@

				    #true))

				(module+ test

				  (require rackunit)

mbutterick (Migrated from github.com) commented

Oh no, I can’t mess with perfection.

I was just trying to understand what box is for. IIUC it’s a way of saving the costs of allocation & GC across function calls by passing what’s essentially a reference to a value rather than the value itself. But, if that’s so, then I don’t understand the benefit of putting a Boolean or symbol in a box, since they’re so tiny to begin with.

Oh no, I can’t mess with perfection. I was just trying to understand what `box` is for. IIUC it’s a way of saving the costs of allocation & GC across function calls by passing what’s essentially a reference to a value rather than the value itself. But, if that’s so, then I don’t understand the benefit of putting a Boolean or symbol in a box, since they’re so tiny to begin with.

bennn (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

beautiful-racket-lib/br/private/generate-literals.rkt

													
				@ -19,2 +34,4 @@

				    #true))

				(module+ test

				  (require rackunit)

bennn (Migrated from github.com) commented

I think the compiler puts set!'d variables into a box (or the moral equivalent of a box). If that's true, then I don't think there's performance savings either way.

(This is based on what I remember from talking to Leif)

To me, a box is for saying "this variable is going to be mutated".

I think the compiler puts `set!`'d variables into a box (or the moral equivalent of a box). If that's true, then I don't think there's performance savings either way. (This is based on what I remember from talking to Leif) To me, a box is for saying "this variable is going to be mutated".

The pull request has been merged as 8000d41389.

You can also view command line instructions.