Yesterday, Noel Welsh wrote: > If you have objections please let me know -- if I don't hear any > I'll commit tomorrow. Diff is attached.
1. At this level, I think that the costs are very important -- and there's two possible costs here: (a) it adds more files to racket/base which adds some overhead to starting up; (b) more importantly, there is no inlining across module boundaries, which means that such splitting can make things significantly slower. (For example, in racket/private/sort I've made some ugly tricks to make things fast, in a way that would be much harder to do across modules.) 2. Since you refactored code, I prefer seeing two commits -- one for shuffling things around without any changes, and one for adding the new feature. This will make reviewing the change easier, and help if there's problems to debug later on. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev