I don't understand your comment. Racket supports mutually recursive
syntax classes. Here's a little toy example:
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax syntax/parse))
(begin-for-syntax
(define-syntax-class x
(pattern i:id
#:with (flat ...) #'(i))
(pattern l:xlist
and I would suggest that we implement the racket matcher completely with
syntax parse.
I usually argue for clarity of code over speed. BUT we must pay
attention to performance, especially widely used features.
Have you measure the performance of the two versions? Indeed you really
need
Yesterday, mfl...@racket-lang.org wrote:
7519b85 Matthew Flatt mfl...@racket-lang.org 2012-05-13 06:56
:
| comment out test that creates a bad dependency
|
| The right long-term solution may be a `strip' operation that
| removes `test' submodules for a distribution.
Maybe a more practical
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Danny Yoo wrote:
I could have sworn that:
https://git.racket-lang.org/
took me to a nice HTML view of the git repository, but at the
moment, I see an empty page.
This never worked -- you should use http://...
Thank you!
This is awesome.
My OpenCL planet package, which used srcdoc heavily, used to take over
4 hours to compile on my machine. (I actually don't know how long it
took, because I didn't have the patience. At some point in the past,
it only took about an hour.)
Now, it takes 60 seconds.
Go Matthew!
5 matches
Mail list logo
