I've read the commit and it looks like a good change. I presume you've re-run the tests and you'll write new tests for the new vector types?
Jay On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Noel Welsh <noelwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I spent (far too much) time this morning refactoring the definition of > in-vector to expose the building blocks to compose these > macro/functions. After refactoring the code for defining in-vector is: > > (define-:vector-like-gen :vector-gen unsafe-vector-ref) > > (define-in-vector-like in-vector > "vector" vector? vector-length :vector-gen) > > (define-sequence-syntax *in-vector > (lambda () #'in-vector) > (make-in-vector-like #'vector? > #'unsafe-vector-length > #'in-vector > #'unsafe-vector-ref)) > > This could obviously be made smaller but it sufficient to enable reuse > for in-flvector (my goal), in-f64vector etc. In doing so I split > for.rkt into three (I couldn't handle refactoring the 1000+ lines of > for.rkt; I needed something smaller to understand it all). Since this > is a moderately large change I'm looking for comments/objections > before committing. If you have objections please let me know -- if I > don't hear any I'll commit tomorrow. Diff is attached. > > N. > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
