[racket-dev] racket/match is broken

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Matthias Felleisen
<matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay. I think it is strange, but feel free to do that and revert my
>>>> change. Apologies for the confusion.
>>
>>> I think you shouldn't apologize here. I am unhappy that match
>>> doesn't guarantee order of matching in a list.
>>>
>>> Sam should change the implementation not the documentation.
>>
>> I'm hoping to eventually use match for redex in order to get some
>> performance improvement and I fear that disabling these optimizations
>> would be bad news for me there. So I hope that's not what happens
>> here.
>
>
> I doubt that this applies but I am willing to look at
> counter-examples.

One has been discussed in this thread. I think Sam promised to look
into seeing how well it applies to our implementation.

>
>> I don't mind if the ordering of calling the predicates is fixed when
>> match cannot prove that the predicates are all safe to be reordered
>> (presumably by match keeping a list of known-to-be-safe predicates
>> somewhere and perhaps looking at the compile-time info to find struct
>> predicates).
>>
>> (That would seem to be a straight-forward change, unless I'm missing something.)
>
>
> That would be fine too.
>

Good.