Automated Resyntax fixes #714
Conversation
![resyntax-ci[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/999945?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.
The `provide/contract` form is a legacy form made obsolete by `contract-out`.
Internal definitions are recommended instead of `let` expressions, to reduce nesting.
This `if` expression can be refactored to an equivalent expression using `and`.
The `else` clause of this `cond` expression is another `cond` expression and can be flattened.
Use the `#:when` keyword instead of `when` to reduce loop body indentation.
This method chain made of nested `send` expressions can be written more clearly as a `send+` expression.
Use `make-temporary-directory` to make directories instead of `make-temporary-file`.
| [use-get/put-dialog (-> (-> any) path? void?)] | ||
| [set-module-language! (->* () (boolean?) void?)]) | ||
| (provide (contract-out [use-get/put-dialog (-> (-> any) path? void?)] | ||
| [set-module-language! (->* () (boolean?) void?)])) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like another situation where we are missing some newlines.
| (raise x))]) | ||
| (fw:preferences:set 'framework:file-dialogs 'common) | ||
| (open-dialog) | ||
| (let ([dlg (wait-for-new-frame drs)]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How come this let didn't go away?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have been asking this a lot. I think one thing that would help is for the PR description to indicate if there's any limitation reached. If so, we wouldn't need to ask anymore if it's Resyntax's fault or not when some issues are not fixed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That sounds like a great idea.
|
|
||
| (clear-definitions drr-frame) | ||
| (do-execute drr-frame) | ||
| (queue-callback/res (λ () (+ 1 (send ints-text last-position)))) |
| (drracket-frame? active)) | ||
| active | ||
| #f)) | ||
| (and (and active (drracket-frame? active)) active)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we only need one and here, but maybe that's out of the scope of this improvement?
| (drracket-frame? active)) | ||
| active | ||
| #f)) | ||
| (and (and active (drracket-frame? active)) active)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ditto (copied code, I wonder?!)
| [(method-in-interface? 'get-stacks (object-interface snip)) | ||
| (define-values (s1 s2) (send snip get-stacks)) | ||
| (list* s1 s2 (loop (send snip next)))] | ||
| [else (loop (send snip next))]))))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one is not a good change. This is going against the data definition. That is, the outer cond is part of the processing of snip (there are two cases for the input and, in the second case of the input, I want to do a conditional thing).
| @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ and then loading the framework after that. | |||
| (define drr-frame (wait-for-drracket-frame)) | |||
| (set-module-language! drr-frame) | |||
| (queue-callback/res | |||
| (λ () (send (send (send drr-frame get-definitions-text) get-canvas) focus))) | |||
| (λ () (send+ drr-frame (get-definitions-text) (get-canvas) (focus)))) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this one is a good change, actually. It isn't like the example in the documentation for send+ where we're getting objects of the same type back and doing functional update.
Resyntax fixed 20 issues in 6 files.
let-to-defineprovide/contract-to-contract-outif-else-false-to-andwhen-expression-in-for-loop-to-when-keywordcond-else-cond-to-condsend-chain-to-send+make-temporary-directory-migrationcond-let-to-cond-define