Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-21 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
Thanks Asumu for merging and fixing my docs bug. Since this was my first time contributing, I figured I'd write up what the steps were for future first-time Racket hackers before I forget: http://jpolitz.github.com/blog/2012/11/21/racket-contributing-tutorial.html Cheers, Joe On Tue, Nov 20, 2

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-20 Thread Robby Findler
I'm not sure how to find the right incantation to pull this down, but this commit looks good to push to our repo. Robby On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: > I think I've successfully sent a thingie to you: > > https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/171 > > Let me know if I Did

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
I think I've successfully sent a thingie to you: https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/171 Let me know if I Did It Wrong. This is the first time I've clicked the "Pull Request" button on Github. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: > Gotcha. match-pred can be a separate thin

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
Gotcha. match-pred can be a separate thing. check-match can also let you use the identifiers bound in the match with an optional third argument, which relies on more than match-pred anyway. That's what I'm doing. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > I think it is better to

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
I think it is better to have a check-match since that way people are more likely to find it. Robby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: >> (? P) => (lambda (x) (match x [P true] [_ false])) > > I like this quite a bit. It wouldn't be crazy to add it as > match-pred(icate) r

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
> (? P) => (lambda (x) (match x [P true] [_ false])) I like this quite a bit. It wouldn't be crazy to add it as match-pred(icate) right next to match-lambda, match-let, and friends ( http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/match.html?q=match&q=match-pred#(form._((lib._racket/match..rkt)._match-lam

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
rackunit has check-pred, of course. Robby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote: > Predicates in general would be really awesome. I think the testing > infrastructure for Sperber's book (DMDA) has something like this. > > Making it lightweight is what matters most, wheth

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
That might be nice, but a form for including a match pattern seems like something that would be really great to have. Robby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, David Van Horn wrote: > On 11/19/12 8:20 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: >> >> > Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" not "t

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Shriram Krishnamurthi
Predicates in general would be really awesome. I think the testing infrastructure for Sperber's book (DMDA) has something like this. Making it lightweight is what matters most, whether through a new match form or a more general predicate form. Shriram On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:25 PM, David Van

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
I think you should just stick "(except @racket[check-], since its first/second argument is a match pattern)" or something like that into the docs in your pull request. Also test cases: I think there is a test suite for rackunit somewhere; let me know if you have trouble with it and I can add tests

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread David Van Horn
On 11/19/12 8:20 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: > Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" not "test" tho, right?) Indeed; Jonah was writing w.r.t plai, which uses test. Should use check- in rackunit. I noticed that this also violates, from the rackunit docs: "Although checks are

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
> Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" not "test" tho, right?) Indeed; Jonah was writing w.r.t plai, which uses test. Should use check- in rackunit. I noticed that this also violates, from the rackunit docs: "Although checks are implemented as macros, which is necessary to gra

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Shriram Krishnamurthi
We use test in PLAI, and I suggested it in that context (eg, unification, where you don't care about the gensym'ed names of logic variables), which is probably why it got called that. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" no

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with "check" not "test" tho, right?) Robby On Monday, November 19, 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can > integrate it into rackunit? -- Matthias > > > > > > On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM,

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread David Van Horn
I written things like this before, so something built-in would be useful to me too. David On 11/19/12 5:01 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate it into rackunit? -- Matthias On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs Po

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Matthias Felleisen
That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate it into rackunit? -- Matthias On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: > A small suggestion: > > I used roughly this macro (credit Jonah Kagan) recently to help me write some > tests for parsing code

[racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
A small suggestion: I used roughly this macro (credit Jonah Kagan) recently to help me write some tests for parsing code that agnostic to which source position is generated in the parse: (define-syntax test/match (syntax-rules () [(test/match actual expected pred) (let ([actual-val act