Hi Ludovic!
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> At the time you were concerned about the “weight” of these macros. Are
> you just more relaxed now, or do you have a psyntax optimization in the
> pipeline? :-)
I did some experiments, and on my 64-bit system this patch increases the
bytecode associated with a record type definition by about 2755 bytes
plus 852 bytes per field. I can live with that.
>> + (and (equal? (set-fields p
>> + ((person-email) "b...@example.com")
>> + ((person-address address-country) "Spain")
>> + ((person-address address-city) "Barcelona"))
>
> The choice of towns seems inaccurate. ;-)
Heh, good point. I changed "Spain" to "Catalonia" :)
>> + (pass-if "set-fields with one path as a prefix of another"
>> + (let ()
>> + (define-immutable-record-type foo (make-foo x) foo?
>> + (x foo-x)
>> + (y foo-y set-foo-y)
>> + (z foo-z set-foo-z))
>> +
>> + (define-immutable-record-type :bar (make-bar i j) bar?
>> + (i bar-i)
>> + (j bar-j set-bar-j))
>> +
>> + (catch 'syntax-error
>> + (lambda ()
>> + (compile '(let ((s (make-bar (make-foo 5) 2)))
>> + (set-fields s
>> + ((bar-i foo-x) 1)
>> + ((bar-i foo-z) 2)
>> + ((bar-i) 3)))
>> + #:env (current-module))
>> + #f)
>> + (lambda (key whom what src form subform)
>> + (equal? (list key whom what form subform)
>> + '(syntax-error set-fields
>> + "one field path is a prefix of another"
>> + (set-fields s
>> + ((bar-i foo-x) 1)
>> + ((bar-i foo-z) 2)
>> + ((bar-i) 3))
>> + (bar-i)))))))))
>
> You might want to use ‘pass-if-equal’ here, for better reporting.
'pass-if-equal' seems inapplicable here, since I'm testing for an
exception. 'pass-if-exception' was closer to what I needed, but I
wanted to verify more than just the exception key.
> Please commit, I’ll take care of the doc.
Done, and thanks :)
Mark
