On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > As far as I can see, exporting `expand-clause` is ok. > > Ideally, I think it should be exported from a new > `racket/for-transform` library, instead of used directly from > `racket/private/for`. Also, `expand-for-clause` might be a better name.
Ok I will add it. Thanks. > > At Fri, 6 Sep 2013 00:45:40 -0400, Stephen Chang wrote: >> Hi dev, >> >> I would like to provide (for-syntax) the "expand-clause" function in >> racket/private/for.rkt. Would this cause any problems? Would anyone >> object to this? >> >> I have an implementation of for/X in my generic-bind library that uses >> expand-clause and with it, the generic-bind ~for forms are as fast, >> sometimes a little faster, than racket's for/X in some preliminary >> testing. (Without access to expand-clause, sequence traversal is slow >> --- the current planet-available version of my library uses >> sequence-generate and is twice as slow.) >> >> The "sometimes a little faster" is likely in part due to less >> error-checking, but my implementation passes all the for/X unit tests >> and so as is, it can reasonably be used in place of for/X. >> _________________________ >> Racket Developers list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
