At Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:17:38 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: > I don't think your changes had anything to do with the "doens't look > very good". But since you asked, if you look at the fully expanded > version of > > (λ (v) (for ([x (in-vector v)]) x)) > > you'll see it begins like this: > > (let-values (((vec len) > (let-values (((vec) v)) > (if (#%app vector? vec) > (#%app void) > (let-values () (#%app in-vector vec))) > (#%app values vec (#%app unsafe-vector-length vec))))) > > with an unnecessary use of multiple values that just binds 'vec' to > 'vec' and otherwise could avoid multiple values and thus be > future-safe.
I'm inclined to blame the compiler for not optimizing away the use `values', so I'll fix it. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
