Yes, I was too wordy. Sounds good. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Vincent St-Amour <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:12:09 -0500, > Stephen Chang wrote: >> >> > - Iteration over hash tables using `in-hash`, `in-hash-pairs`, >> > `in-mutable-hash` and `in-mutable-set` have improved performance, up >> > to twice as fast on microbenchmarks. >> >> This is not equivalent to my original text. How about: >> >> Hash table and set iteration, via both existing and new non-generic >> sequences, is more performant, up to twice as fast on microbenchmarks. > > Sorry. I tried to simplify them. > > Let's use your new text. > > Vincent
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAFfiA1Kw3BrLLqht-88brT40sYXba1OQRdxGMPFFYdOjuGqSOQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
