On 07/22/2016 01:17 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> Ok, just a few left.
>
>> ryanc:
>> - upcoming syntax/parse backwards incompatibility
>
> I've re-read the discussion, and now I'm confused. Was the resolution a
> new set of changes that accomplishes what the older, backwards-
> incompatible changes would have achieved, but which preserves backwards
> compatibility? I.e., are we still planning to introduce an incompatibility
> in 6.7?
A change is still happening, but it doesn't affect those packages we
discussed earlier; they were taken care of by refining when
"nullability" matters. Here's my text:
* `syntax-parse` raises an error when an ellipsis pattern has an empty
match rather than diverging, and it logs a warning when it statically
detects a nullable pattern, such as `((~seq) ...)`. In the next version
of Racket, it will reject the pattern instead, and it will remove
special handling that currently makes some uses of such patterns terminate.
>> - syntax/parse progress tracking 80364d85ddc4977b4e10086b4993e7b3e152a04c 4e6438eaf2b252d64d7f101141d3cdad74618cec
>
> `syntax/parse` has improved progress tracking, leading to error
> message improvements for macros implemented with it.
I think we can leave this out, but if you want to include it I like this
text.
>> - macro-debugger: macro code size profiler 7abcdbd3bd4e1c2d31b0880ad31efe7e47922bda
>
> The new macro profiler shows which macros contribute most to expanded
> code size.
* The new Macro Profiler command-line tool (`raco macro-profiler`) shows
how macros contribute to the final expanded code size of a program.
Ryan