Jacqueline Firth

It might make more sense to do it in terms of `bytes->list` rather than `bytes->hex-string`: ``` racket (define (bytes->number bytes) (digits->number (bytes->list bytes) 256)) (define (digits->number digits base) (let loop...

Yeah the cycle is fine. Indirection through the box is enough to break it. Though I am surprised it uses a box at all instead of a parameter.

Ah, that makes sense. Parameters have the overhead of thread cells to worry about.

This is more of a racket/gui issue than a rhombus issue since I'm sure there's a backward-compatible way to achieve this. Could someone with appropriate permissions transfer this issue to...

Now that the `--refactoring-rule` option is implemented to filter the refactoring suite down to a specific rule, this would be even more useful. This should be implemented with a `--output-summary-stats-only`...

Here's one possible idea: a `define-splicing-refactoring-rule` that matches a splice of syntax objects and suggests a new splice to replace it. The relationship between this and `define-refactoring-rule` would be similar...

Looks like [this logic](https://github.com/jackfirth/resyntax/blob/43f5fc6153b1d1dc9fff65a23391c4aac604fb22/default-recommendations%2Fsyntax-parse-shortcuts.rkt#L54-L64) is wrong. It should only match when the last body form is wrapped in `syntax`, not always match and then strip the `syntax` if it's present....

Related to #586. I might either drop this task or drop the `syntax-original?` requirement for original source UTS mentioned in that issue, depending on what's harder.

I think I want to use this lint as an opportunity to give Resyntax the ability to express rules that just point out bugs without offering suggested fixes. This seems...

Proposed API: add a `source-syntax-paths` function that accepts a `source?` and an optional `range-set?` of line numbers, and returns an immutable `sorted-set?` of `syntax-path?` values. Any syntax objects which partially...