On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 5 minutes ago, David Van Horn wrote: >> On 2/15/11 7:02 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: >> > Three hours ago, Hendrik Boom wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 04:43:24PM -0600, Robby Findler wrote: >> >>> I guess I'm asking if true is bound somewhere or not. >> >> >> >> It almost looks as if you want predicates on the right side of =>' >> > >> > Yes -- the whole point of the simple arrow-less version is to make >> > using predicates very easy. For example, instead of some >> > >> > 1. (test E1 =satisfies> even? >> > E2 =satisfies> (lambda (x) (> x 50))) >> > >> > you'd write >> > >> > 2. (test (even? E1) >> > (> E2 50)) >> >> You could allow the arrow-less form (which I like) but require it to >> produce #t and only #t. This accommodates your examples while catching >> things like: >> >> (test (fact 5) 121) > > Nice idea -- and for the rare cases where you want a non-boolean > predicate you'd resort to the less conveniet > > (test (and (member E '(1 2 3)) #t)) > > Robby: would you find this acceptable, or is the hole that it leaves > (making the no-arrow mistake with a #t-resulting expression) too big?
I wouldn't have suggested it :), but it seems like a much more minor issue than it was before. The main thing I'd like to see at this point is docs and some decisions made! Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
