Two minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> I guess I'm asking if true is bound somewhere or not.
Ah -- I should have remembered that point. Yes, I meant that it is
bound. I should have also said that `true' is a bad name for this
reason, in the same way that `->' is (I'd prefer it over `=>'). BTW,
this leads to another requirement -- the "namespace pollution" should
be minimal since you don't want code to change (as in `true' getting
some strange value for tests) because you use tests.
In any case, if this is a sane approach, then maybe it can be used for
the multiple values and the exceptions case too. Something like this:
(test E1 => true-result
E2 => (values-result 1 2)
E3 => (raised-result 666))
?
On one hand, it bugs me exactly because of the above -- it adds a
bunch of `*-result' bindings, but this is similar to adding new
arrows. On the other hand, it might be a convenient way to provide
extensibility in an easier way -- something like:
(test E => (matching-result (list x x)))
would check that E evaluates to a list of two equal things using
`match'. I'd be even more tempted if it could also be used instead of
some arrows, like
(test E1 => (error-result "expected error text")
E2 => (output-result "expected output text"))
This might work, but it means that the RHS should be evaluated first
to see how the LHS is evaluated -- catching errors in the first case,
and capturing output in the second.
Does this sound like a good idea?
--
((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
