Skip to content

Conversation

@resyntax-ci
Copy link
Contributor

@resyntax-ci resyntax-ci bot commented Feb 16, 2025

Resyntax fixed 20 issues in 5 files.

  • Fixed 13 occurrences of let-to-define
  • Fixed 1 occurrence of send-chain-to-send+
  • Fixed 1 occurrence of if-begin-to-cond
  • Fixed 1 occurrence of nested-if-to-cond
  • Fixed 1 occurrence of cond-let-to-cond-define
  • Fixed 1 occurrence of hash-ref-with-constant-lambda-to-hash-ref-without-lambda
  • Fixed 1 occurrence of zero-comparison-to-positive?
  • Fixed 1 occurrence of if-let-to-cond

Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.
`cond` with internal definitions is preferred over `if` with `let`, to reduce nesting
…t-lambda`

The lambda can be removed from the failure result in this `hash-ref` expression.
Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.
This method chain made of nested `send` expressions can be written more clearly as a `send+` expression.
This `if`-`else` chain can be converted to a `cond` expression.
Using `cond` instead of `if` here makes `begin` unnecessary
This expression is equivalent to calling the `positive?` predicate.
(let ([k (lambda (node)
(rotate-k always-rotate node))])
(let ([k (lambda (node) (rotate-k always-rotate node))])
(if (eq? node (node-y p))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In this region (recolor-k, rotate-k, and k), why didn't the lets turn into defines? It looks like the main change here is reformatting?

(cond
[(<= pos npos) (loop (node-left n) n npos v)]
[(or (not so-far-pos) (> npos so-far-pos)) (loop (node-right n) n npos npos)]
[else (loop (node-right n) so-far so-far-pos npos)])))))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the formatting changes here don't seem like a win, alas.

(define b (send dc get-brush))
(send
dc
set-brush
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

another send formatting issue. I think this one has been mentioned before, tho.

@rfindler
Copy link
Member

Other than the comments above, I think this is good.

@rfindler rfindler closed this May 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants