Re: [racket-dev] Wow; racket master at least 2x faster than 5.3.1 on my rb tree benchmark?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
Score another one for random testing! :) On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Danny Yoo d...@hashcollision.org wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi olopie...@gmail.com wrote: How does compare to builtin mutable hashes? The following code represents a rough hashtable

Re: [racket-dev] Racket installs more files on amd64 than on i386

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
I think it is probably best to have the OpenBSD port be a faithful match to 5.3.1. This isn't a major bug and hopefully you'll just get the fix in 5.3.2 or whatever the next version is called in 2-3 months. Does that sound ok to you? Robby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero

Re: [racket-dev] Racket installs more files on amd64 than on i386

2012-11-19 Thread Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
On 11/19/12 19:21, Robby Findler wrote: I think it is probably best to have the OpenBSD port be a faithful match to 5.3.1. This isn't a major bug and hopefully you'll just get the fix in 5.3.2 or whatever the next version is called in 2-3 months. Does that sound ok to you? Temporally I'll

[racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
A small suggestion: I used roughly this macro (credit Jonah Kagan) recently to help me write some tests for parsing code that agnostic to which source position is generated in the parse: (define-syntax test/match (syntax-rules () [(test/match actual expected pred) (let ([actual-val

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Matthias Felleisen
That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate it into rackunit? -- Matthias On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: A small suggestion: I used roughly this macro (credit Jonah Kagan) recently to help me write some tests for parsing code

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread David Van Horn
I written things like this before, so something built-in would be useful to me too. David On 11/19/12 5:01 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate it into rackunit? -- Matthias On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with check not test tho, right?) Robby On Monday, November 19, 2012, Matthias Felleisen wrote: That is cute. Why don't you just create a pull request and Ryan can integrate it into rackunit? -- Matthias On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Joe Gibbs

Re: [racket-dev] Racket installs more files on amd64 than on i386

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
Oh, I see. If you really need the lists of files to be the same, it is probably best to make both versions have the files (altho don't different architectures have different sets of files in general?). Probably you'll be breaking the distro if you remove files. Robby On Monday, November 19,

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Shriram Krishnamurthi
We use test in PLAI, and I suggested it in that context (eg, unification, where you don't care about the gensym'ed names of logic variables), which is probably why it got called that. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote: Yeah, that is very nice! (It

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with check not test tho, right?) Indeed; Jonah was writing w.r.t plai, which uses test. Should use check- in rackunit. I noticed that this also violates, from the rackunit docs: Although checks are implemented as macros, which is necessary to grab

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread David Van Horn
On 11/19/12 8:20 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with check not test tho, right?) Indeed; Jonah was writing w.r.t plai, which uses test. Should use check- in rackunit. I noticed that this also violates, from the rackunit docs: Although checks are

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
I think you should just stick (except @racket[check-whatever], since its first/second argument is a match pattern) or something like that into the docs in your pull request. Also test cases: I think there is a test suite for rackunit somewhere; let me know if you have trouble with it and I can

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Shriram Krishnamurthi
Predicates in general would be really awesome. I think the testing infrastructure for Sperber's book (DMDA) has something like this. Making it lightweight is what matters most, whether through a new match form or a more general predicate form. Shriram On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:25 PM, David Van

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
That might be nice, but a form for including a match pattern seems like something that would be really great to have. Robby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, David Van Horn dvanh...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: On 11/19/12 8:20 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz wrote: Yeah, that is very nice! (It should begin with

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
rackunit has check-pred, of course. Robby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi s...@cs.brown.edu wrote: Predicates in general would be really awesome. I think the testing infrastructure for Sperber's book (DMDA) has something like this. Making it lightweight is what

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
(? P) = (lambda (x) (match x [P true] [_ false])) I like this quite a bit. It wouldn't be crazy to add it as match-pred(icate) right next to match-lambda, match-let, and friends (

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Robby Findler
I think it is better to have a check-match since that way people are more likely to find it. Robby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz j...@cs.brown.edu wrote: (? P) = (lambda (x) (match x [P true] [_ false])) I like this quite a bit. It wouldn't be crazy to add it as

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
Gotcha. match-pred can be a separate thing. check-match can also let you use the identifiers bound in the match with an optional third argument, which relies on more than match-pred anyway. That's what I'm doing. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.eduwrote:

Re: [racket-dev] check-match?

2012-11-19 Thread Joe Gibbs Politz
I think I've successfully sent a thingie to you: https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/171 Let me know if I Did It Wrong. This is the first time I've clicked the Pull Request button on Github. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Joe Gibbs Politz j...@cs.brown.edu wrote: Gotcha. match-pred can be