On 2015-02-05 21:20:34 -0800, Alexis King wrote: > Anyway, it looks like the TR expansion of for loops doesn’t account for > the (rather large) type of in-range. I think Asumu’s rewriting the loops > in TR, though—perhaps this will be fixed then?
I have a semi-working rewrite of the for loops, but I don't want to get people's hopes up quite yet because I'm not sure it's the right approach. More specifically, since it involves re-writing the `for` macros and then doing a custom typechecking pass afterwards, it means that the optimizer can't work straightforwardly on the expansion. (i.e., the optimizer would need special casing for `for` too) Also, it's probably not quite sound because it doesn't account for custom sequence syntax defined via `define-sequence-syntax` in that it assumes the expr form and the clause forms will typecheck to the same thing (which does not hold in general). It might be better to just coax the expansion more to be type-checkable or maybe to improve type inference. Cheers, Asumu ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
