Automated Resyntax fixes #1438

resyntax-ci · 2025-02-28T00:35:13Z

Resyntax fixed 41 issues in 20 files.

Fixed 15 occurrences of single-clause-match-to-match-define
Fixed 6 occurrences of let-to-define
Fixed 2 occurrences of define-simple-macro-to-define-syntax-parse-rule
Fixed 2 occurrences of if-else-false-to-and
Fixed 2 occurrences of zero-comparison-to-positive?
Fixed 2 occurrences of map-to-for
Fixed 2 occurrences of sort-with-keyed-comparator-to-sort-by-key
Fixed 1 occurrence of case-lambda-with-single-case-to-lambda
Fixed 1 occurrence of if-begin-to-cond
Fixed 1 occurrence of define-lambda-to-define
Fixed 1 occurrence of inverted-unless
Fixed 1 occurrence of provide-deduplication
Fixed 1 occurrence of begin0-let-to-define-begin0
Fixed 1 occurrence of inverted-when
Fixed 1 occurrence of define-values-values-to-define
Fixed 1 occurrence of cond-let-to-cond-define
Fixed 1 occurrence of syntax-disarm-migration

The `define-simple-macro` form has been renamed to `define-syntax-parse-rule`.

This expression is equivalent to calling the `positive?` predicate.

The `syntax-disarm` function is a legacy function that does nothing.

Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.

This `if` expression can be refactored to an equivalent expression using `and`.

This `match` expression can be simplified using `match-define`.

This `map` operation can be replaced with a `for/list` loop.

The `define` form supports a shorthand for defining functions.

Providing the same identifier multiple times is unnecessary.

Using `cond` instead of `if` here makes `begin` unnecessary

The `let` expression in this `begin0` form can be extracted into the surrounding definition context.

This `case-lambda` form only has one case. Use a regular lambda instead.

This use of `define-values` is unnecessary.

This negated `unless` expression can be replaced by a `when` expression.

This `sort` expression can be replaced with a simpler, equivalent expression.

This negated `when` expression can be replaced by an `unless` expression.

Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.

samth · 2025-03-04T17:28:33Z

typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/core.rkt

                                                (raise-arguments-error
-                                                  (string->symbol (format "typed/racket/~a" (keyword->string (syntax-e te-attr))))


@jackfirth this could use format-symbol from racket/syntax

Added a new rule for this in jackfirth/resyntax#442.

samth · 2025-03-04T17:30:32Z

typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/rep/prop-rep.rkt

@@ -143,8 +143,7 @@
  [#:for-each (f) (for-each f ps)]
  [#:custom-constructor/contract
   (-> (listof (or/c TypeProp? NotTypeProp? LeqProp?)) OrProp?)
-   (let ([ps (sort ps (λ (p q) (unsafe-fx<= (eq-hash-code p)


@jackfirth my guess is that this change is slower

If it is, that seems like a missed optimization opportunity in sort.

It's really an issue of inlining.

samth · 2025-03-04T17:30:56Z

typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/static-contracts/combinators/control.rkt

-      (map f* vals)
-      (and call-cc (map f* call-cc)))]))
+  (match-define (pt-seq vals call-cc) seq)
+  (define (f* a)


@sorawee why is this on two lines?

It's a "community"'s preference to always format function definition this way. It used to support one-line format, but IIRC, either @jackfirth or @Metaxal gathered supporters to NOT do the one-line format, and I made the change accordingly.

I would be interested to find that discussion; I strongly disagree.

If it was me, I don't remember having a strong opinion about this. Perhaps it was more of a pragmatic choice at that time(?). But again, perhaps it wasn't me 😁

It's @Metaxal. I'm very lucky that I wrote your name in the commit message 😂

sorawee/fmt@831bb4c

Haha indeed! Though "Suggestion by" sounds a bit different from "gathered supporters to NOT do" ;)

Again, I don't feel particularly strongly about this, although I do have a preference for two lines so that the function header stands out. I'm not going to die on this hill though.

It was also me. I was (and still am) of the strong opinion that function definitions should never be on a single line. Otherwise it's hard to tell them apart from variable definitions.

Functions are just another kind of variable. ;)

samth · 2025-03-04T17:32:57Z

typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/typed-reader.rkt

+        (let-values ([(l c p) (port-next-location port)])
+          (raise-read-error (format "typed expression ~a not properly terminated"
+                                    (syntax->datum name))
+                            src


I hate this indentation.

What's your preferred format?

having all the additional arguments on the same line. I realize that this preference of mine is not widely shared but I'm still grumpy.

FWIW, I also find the new indentation jarring: there's a big empty space with just a few letters. It's quite wasteful information-wise.

I agree with this particular case, but I'm not sure how to turn this into code in a way that makes other cases also look good.

E.g.: compare:

(format "This is a very long string" first-long-string second-long-string third-long-string fourth-long-string))

vs:

(format "This is a very long string" first-long-string second-long-string third-long-string fourth-long-string))

I think the second one is preferable.

Yes, I agree with that. I bet you can make resyntax do it though. :)

I could attempt something. Do you think this case with raise-read-error comes up enough to be worth it?

No it would have to be more general, but I bet the case where format is involved happens a lot.

More general is trickier because it makes it difficult to pick a good name for the introduced variable.

Good excuse to use LLM to find a name?

samth · 2025-04-18T14:21:33Z

Should this be merged or closed?

jackfirth · 2025-04-18T19:31:38Z

@samth Up to you. Resyntax cannot (yet) update pull requests after it's made them so the options are to merge it as-is, merge it with manual edits for anything you want to change, or close it and let Resyntax try again next time. As the repo owner I defer to you on that choice.

samth · 2025-04-18T19:34:23Z

Ok I'm going to close this and we'll see what the next one does.

resyntax-ci bot added 18 commits February 28, 2025 00:35

Fix 2 occurrences of define-simple-macro-to-define-syntax-parse-rule

21784fd

The `define-simple-macro` form has been renamed to `define-syntax-parse-rule`.

Fix 2 occurrences of zero-comparison-to-positive?

63a7fe1

This expression is equivalent to calling the `positive?` predicate.

Fix 1 occurrence of syntax-disarm-migration

60a1399

The `syntax-disarm` function is a legacy function that does nothing.

Fix 5 occurrences of let-to-define

da8c553

Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.

Fix 2 occurrences of if-else-false-to-and

583a1e3

This `if` expression can be refactored to an equivalent expression using `and`.

Fix 15 occurrences of single-clause-match-to-match-define

f8d6c9d

This `match` expression can be simplified using `match-define`.

Fix 2 occurrences of map-to-for

84dc345

This `map` operation can be replaced with a `for/list` loop.

Fix 1 occurrence of define-lambda-to-define

c6f5a28

The `define` form supports a shorthand for defining functions.

Fix 1 occurrence of provide-deduplication

5f1257e

Providing the same identifier multiple times is unnecessary.

Fix 1 occurrence of if-begin-to-cond

57862b3

Using `cond` instead of `if` here makes `begin` unnecessary

Fix 1 occurrence of begin0-let-to-define-begin0

651bd68

The `let` expression in this `begin0` form can be extracted into the surrounding definition context.

Fix 1 occurrence of case-lambda-with-single-case-to-lambda

3575e85

This `case-lambda` form only has one case. Use a regular lambda instead.

Fix 1 occurrence of define-values-values-to-define

3f21958

This use of `define-values` is unnecessary.

Fix 1 occurrence of inverted-unless

f2601c5

This negated `unless` expression can be replaced by a `when` expression.

Fix 2 occurrences of sort-with-keyed-comparator-to-sort-by-key

c7858d9

This `sort` expression can be replaced with a simpler, equivalent expression.

Fix 1 occurrence of inverted-when

c9d12e3

This negated `when` expression can be replaced by an `unless` expression.

Fix 1 occurrence of let-to-define

a51e0f3

Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.

Fix 1 occurrence of cond-let-to-cond-define

df62579

Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.

samth reviewed Mar 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

jackfirth mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2025

Add format-string-to-format-symbol rule jackfirth/resyntax#442

Merged

samth closed this Apr 18, 2025

		(raise-arguments-error
		(string->symbol (format "typed/racket/~a" (keyword->string (syntax-e te-attr))))

Uh oh!

Automated Resyntax fixes #1438

Automated Resyntax fixes #1438

Uh oh!

Conversation

resyntax-ci bot commented Feb 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

samth commented Apr 18, 2025

Uh oh!

jackfirth commented Apr 18, 2025

Uh oh!

samth commented Apr 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!