6 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2011, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> > Yesterday, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> >> Eli Barzilay wrote at 02/13/2011 09:41 PM:
> >> > It currently shoots for (and will continue in the future) a very
> >> > low readability overhead -- that's the whole reason for the
> >> > infixish `=>' syntax. [...] To put this differently, I view tests
> >> > as an important thing that lives in the api neighborhood. So
> >> > anything that requires looking at the documentation for casual
> >> > readers is as bad as writing the manual in hebrew and and handing
> >> > out dictionaries.
> >>
> >> I'm not so sure about the requirement "readability by casual readers
> >> of the source without requiring looking at the documentation".
> >
> > I'm tempted to ask what would you consider unclear about
> >
> > (test (+ 1 2) => 3)
> >
> > but that's getting into subjectiveland. In any case, I figured that
> > a much better solution to avoid some new `/=>' is to have instead a
> > new `true' so that (test E => true) works for any non-#f value.
>
> That looks worse to me than (test (and X #true) => #true) because it
> raises all the new keyword binding issues. FWIW.
I'm not following this comment.
--
((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
