I guess I'm asking if true is bound somewhere or not. Robby
On Monday, February 14, 2011, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 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
