On 2/14/11 7:18 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
(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.)
I read Stephen's comment as objecting to the use of the name `true',
which already means #t, to be the name for Eli's new truish value that
is `=>' to all non-false values.
Using `truish' for Eli's proposed value, I would expect the following to
succeed:
(test
1 => truish
#t => true
#t => truish)
and the following to fail:
(test
1 => true
#f => true
#f => truish)
David
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
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
