Skip to content

Automated Resyntax fixes #739

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 22, 2025
Merged

Automated Resyntax fixes #739

merged 4 commits into from
May 22, 2025

Conversation

resyntax-ci[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@resyntax-ci resyntax-ci bot commented May 18, 2025

Resyntax fixed 20 issues in 2 files.

  • Fixed 11 occurrences of instantiate-to-new
  • Fixed 6 occurrences of let-to-define
  • Fixed 2 occurrences of zero-comparison-to-negative?
  • Fixed 1 occurrence of for-each-to-for

resyntax-ci bot added 4 commits May 18, 2025 00:10
This `for-each` operation can be replaced with a `for` loop.
The `instantiate` form is for mixing positional and by-name constructor arguments. When no positional arguments are needed, use `new` instead.
Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.
This expression is equivalent to calling the `negative?` predicate.
@rfindler
Copy link
Member

I'm not sold on the use of negative? and those transformations (I realize this isn't the first ones of those...) but otherwise this looks good to me.

@jackfirth
Copy link
Collaborator

I haven't been too pleased with those suggestions either. I've disabled them. Up to you whether you want to merge this as-is, close it and let Resyntax try again now that those suggestions are gone, or edit this PR to remove/revert those specific fixes and then merge it.

@rfindler rfindler merged commit d467648 into master May 22, 2025
3 checks passed
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