(I have other comments on the Eli's proposal but why you're observing here is unfortunately already intrenched in Racket; it isn't new here.)
On Monday, February 14, 2011, Stephen Bloch <sbl...@adelphi.edu> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > >> 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. > > Umm... isn't redefining "true" sorta like redefining pi to equal 3? If > you're going to create such a magic value, PLEASE call it "non-false" or > something instead of "true". > > > Stephen Bloch > sbl...@adelphi.edu > > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
