add scopes within boxes, vectors, hashes, and prefab structs #2

2018-05-24T21:16:36+01:00

AlexKnauth commented

2018-05-24 21:16:36 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This adds the superscript scope markers within other containers which might be found inside syntax objects.

This changes an output like this:

(#%sig⁷₈⁹₁₀⁴₁₁¹⁵₁₆ #hash((T . T)) #hash((T . (#%type-decl (#%opaque)))))

Into an output like this:

(#%sig⁵₆²₇¹¹₁₂ #hash((T . T¹³₁₄¹⁵₂⁷₃¹¹₁₆¹⁷)) #hash((T . (#%type-decl⁵₆²₇¹¹₁₂¹⁷ (#%opaque⁵₆²₇¹¹₁₂¹⁷)))))

This adds the superscript scope markers within other containers which might be found inside syntax objects. This changes an output like this: ```racket (#%sig⁷₈⁹₁₀⁴₁₁¹⁵₁₆ #hash((T . T)) #hash((T . (#%type-decl (#%opaque))))) ``` Into an output like this: ```racket (#%sig⁵₆²₇¹¹₁₂ #hash((T . T¹³₁₄¹⁵₂⁷₃¹¹₁₆¹⁷)) #hash((T . (#%type-decl⁵₆²₇¹¹₁₂¹⁷ (#%opaque⁵₆²₇¹¹₁₂¹⁷))))) ```

codecov-io commented

2018-05-24 21:22:33 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Codecov Report

Merging #2 into master will decrease coverage by 1.46%.
The diff coverage is 9.09%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master       #2      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.75%   68.28%   -1.47%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines         443      454      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits          309      310       +1     
- Misses        134      144      +10

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
superscripts.rkt	`15.23% <9.09%> (-0.49%)`	⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 59754c3...a992664. Read the comment docs.

# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2?src=pr&el=h1) Report > Merging [#2](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2?src=pr&el=desc) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/commit/59754c3569973705587a3738edd90aa4608bb4e0?src=pr&el=desc) will **decrease** coverage by `1.46%`. > The diff coverage is `9.09%`. [![Impacted file tree graph](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2/graphs/tree.svg?src=pr&width=650&token=Y12ezYWJtp&height=150)](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2?src=pr&el=tree) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #2 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 69.75% 68.28% -1.47% ========================================== Files 11 11 Lines 443 454 +11 ========================================== + Hits 309 310 +1 - Misses 134 144 +10 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2?src=pr&el=tree) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [superscripts.rkt](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2/diff?src=pr&el=tree#diff-c3VwZXJzY3JpcHRzLnJrdA==) | `15.23% <9.09%> (-0.49%)` | :arrow_down: | ------ [Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2?src=pr&el=continue). > **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta) > `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data` > Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2?src=pr&el=footer). Last update [59754c3...a992664](https://codecov.io/gh/jsmaniac/debug-scopes/pull/2?src=pr&el=lastupdated). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments).

SuzanneSoy commented

2018-05-24 21:59:37 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Thanks a lot!

This package is released in the public domain (currently using the CC0, but I could change that in the future if there appears to be a better way to deal with the legal technicalities). Is that okay for this contribution?

Thanks a lot! This package is released in the public domain (currently using the CC0, but I could change that in the future if there appears to be a better way to deal with the legal technicalities). Is that okay for this contribution?

AlexKnauth commented

2018-05-24 22:00:04 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Yes.

SuzanneSoy (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-05-24 22:01:29 +01:00

superscripts.rkt

						
				@ -117,3 +127,4 @@

				      (apply make-prefab-struct key (map add-scopes (struct->list e)))]

				    [else e]))

				(define (sli/use whole-stx)

SuzanneSoy (Migrated from github.com) commented

2018-05-24 22:01:28 +01:00

Out of curiosity, why use for/fold instead of hash-map? Does this have something to do with the identity of the (possibly mutable) hash object?

Out of curiosity, why use `for/fold` instead of `hash-map`? Does this have something to do with the identity of the (possibly mutable) hash object?

AlexKnauth (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-05-24 22:02:01 +01:00

superscripts.rkt

						
				@ -117,3 +127,4 @@

				      (apply make-prefab-struct key (map add-scopes (struct->list e)))]

				    [else e]))

				(define (sli/use whole-stx)

AlexKnauth (Migrated from github.com) commented

2018-05-24 22:02:01 +01:00

Because hash-map returns a list, not a hash.

Because `hash-map` returns a list, not a hash.

SuzanneSoy (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-05-24 22:03:59 +01:00

superscripts.rkt

						
				@ -117,3 +127,4 @@

				      (apply make-prefab-struct key (map add-scopes (struct->list e)))]

				    [else e]))

				(define (sli/use whole-stx)

SuzanneSoy (Migrated from github.com) commented

2018-05-24 22:03:59 +01:00

Oh yeah, of course. I'm always surprised when I realise that :) .

AlexKnauth (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-05-24 22:05:25 +01:00

superscripts.rkt

						
				@ -117,3 +127,4 @@

				      (apply make-prefab-struct key (map add-scopes (struct->list e)))]

				    [else e]))

				(define (sli/use whole-stx)

AlexKnauth (Migrated from github.com) commented

2018-05-24 22:05:25 +01:00

We also considered for/hash, but then realized it doesn't preserve the "equal" operation as in whether it's an eq?, eqv?, or equal? based hash, while hash-update does preserve that.

We also considered `for/hash`, but then realized it doesn't preserve the "equal" operation as in whether it's an `eq?`, `eqv?`, or `equal?` based hash, while `hash-update` does preserve that.