theory-exploration-benchmarks VS r7rs-spec

I chose Racket for a project that involved lots of AST manipulation. Those ASTs were already in s-expression format, so Scheme seemed a natural fit.

The lack of static types was annoying; Typed Racket helped, but was so slow I only enabled it during unit tests (more precisely: Typed Racket functions can be faster than those written in normal Racket, but calling them from normal Racket functions will be slow as it performs run-time checks)

https://github.com/Warbo/theory-exploration-benchmarks/tree/...

> "CLI args are usually passed around explicitly" -- I think this is a pro, not a con.

Sure; I never said it's a con. They have different characteristics, and are both useful in certain situations :)

> I think the correct term for "things the caller knows better than the implementor" are parameters.

True; that's also the name Racket gives to dynamically-scoped variables https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/parameterize.html

In fact, Racket uses a parameter (dynamically-scoped variable) to store the environment. This is actually slightly annoying, since the parameter is one big hashmap of all the env vars; but I usually want to override them individually. One of my Racket projects actually defines a helper function to override individual env vars makes a copies all the other environment ( made a are contained in a parameterhttps://github.com/Warbo/theory-exploration-benchmarks/blob/...

Or more simply https://github.com/johnwcowan/r7rs-spec/tree/errata/rnrs, where you can get Every Scheme Standard Evar. It's unsurprising that there is no one place for R7RS-large, considering how inchoate it is.

You probably don’t ever want to use eq? because it’s unspecified behavior. You can get more information from the R7RS specification: https://github.com/johnwcowan/r7rs-spec/blob/errata/spec/r7rs.pdf on page 30 (section 6.1 Equality Predicates) and more Racket specific information from chapter 4 of the Racket reference: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/Equality.html