As far as I can see, exporting `expand-clause` is ok. Ideally, I think it should be exported from a new `racket/for-transform` library, instead of used directly from `racket/private/for`. Also, `expand-for-clause` might be a better name.
At Fri, 6 Sep 2013 00:45:40 -0400, Stephen Chang wrote: > Hi dev, > > I would like to provide (for-syntax) the "expand-clause" function in > racket/private/for.rkt. Would this cause any problems? Would anyone > object to this? > > I have an implementation of for/X in my generic-bind library that uses > expand-clause and with it, the generic-bind ~for forms are as fast, > sometimes a little faster, than racket's for/X in some preliminary > testing. (Without access to expand-clause, sequence traversal is slow > --- the current planet-available version of my library uses > sequence-generate and is twice as slow.) > > The "sometimes a little faster" is likely in part due to less > error-checking, but my implementation passes all the for/X unit tests > and so as is, it can reasonably be used in place of for/X. > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
