20 minutes ago, Stephen Bloch wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:30 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
>
> > ... the bottom line is that the test of "non-#f" is very common --
> > so I really don't want to force people to write some verbose
> >
> > (test (and E #t) => #t)
> >
> > or
> >
> > (test (not (not E)) => #t)
> >
> > or even
> >
> > (test (true? E) => #t)
>
> But this "verbose" solution is still not significantly longer than
> the nested "test" you propose.
It's verbose in that there is `true?' and `#t'.
> In any case, wouldn't
>
> (test E /=> #f)
>
> be even shorter and clearer?
I find `/=>' extremely confusing. If it means a simple "does not
evaluate to", then what happens when E throws an error?
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
