At Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:54:16 -0600, Neil Toronto wrote: > I wouldn't want to because `for/vector' is currently broken when > #:length is given. (See PR 13029 and PR 13030.) > > I think the only way to fix it is to implement it like I did: expand to > plain `for:' and mutate an external index.
I pushed a repair that doesn't involve `set!'. At Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:05:47 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Neil Toronto <neil.toro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On the plus side, mine's about > > twice as fast. It expands to plain `for:' and bangs values into a growable > > vector. > > In that case, presumably we should change `for/vector` in > `racket/base` to the faster version. > > Matthew, does this seem reasonable? I can change `for/vector' to avoid lists and grow a vector. On my test of 1000 elements, the difference is more like x1.5 instead of x2, though. As for the problem with padding `#:length'-specified vectors with 0, maybe there should be a `#:default' clause to provide the fill value, instead? _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
