Jacqueline Firth

An explicit `check-sequence-equal?` in something like `rackunit/collection` might be a better for testing. For REPL interactions, maybe the library could provide it's own `#%top-interaction` that does the `known-finite?` check for...

As a temporary workaround, what about a `(module/cover body ...)` macro that makes a submodule and immediately requires it? So this: ```racket #lang racket (require rackunit) (module/cover racket (define-syntax (define-one...

The horrible mess :) There's also the `syntax-sloc` package which has a `raco sloc` command that could use this, see AlexKnauth/syntax-sloc#8.

Great to hear there's interest! I should probably narrow down my use case to give you a better idea of what I'm after then. What I specifically want is this...

Huh, I never knew that existed. Cover uses errortrace as well correct? Other than being single-file vs. multi-file, cover shouldn't behave differently from the "syntactic test suite coverage" option? My...

Would it be better to open issues and implement changes for DrRacket's single file code coverage, or instead presume Cover will eventually replace that functionality completely?

I think a function-like macro like `rackunit` checks is a fine idea. Here's an idea for naming: - `(define#R (foo arg ...) body ...)` Records callsite information in the same...

Re: clarification - I believe that's what I mean. Let me be more explicit: I would create a module defining `gap-resovler`, `overlap-resolver`, and `offset-resolver` structs, along with defining the existing...

@97jaz Internally at my workplace there's a very good document about datetime APIs called How To Think About Time, and one of the main things it recommends is separating _physical...

I wasn't aware that existed but it seems to fit the bill perfectly.