On Mar 1, 12:19 pm, linh wrote:
> thank you for the information
>
> On Mar 1, 5:09 pm, "Michel S." wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 11:02 am, "Michel S." wrote:> On Feb
> > 28, 6:16 pm, linh wrote:> hello,
> > > > what's the common idiom in functional programming regarding checking
> > > > the validi
thank you for the information
On Mar 1, 5:09 pm, "Michel S." wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:02 am, "Michel S." wrote:> On Feb 28,
> 6:16 pm, linh wrote:> hello,
> > > what's the common idiom in functional programming regarding checking
> > > the validity of arguments to functions. i think this is call
On Mar 1, 11:02 am, "Michel S." wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:16 pm, linh wrote:> hello,
> > what's the common idiom in functional programming regarding checking
> > the validity of arguments to functions. i think this is called
> > defensive programming vs contract programming.
>
> Mostly defensive,
On Feb 28, 6:16 pm, linh wrote:
> hello,
> what's the common idiom in functional programming regarding checking
> the validity of arguments to functions. i think this is called
> defensive programming vs contract programming.
>
Mostly defensive, I think. Some languages (e.g. PLT Scheme) have
cont
hello,
what's the common idiom in functional programming regarding checking
the validity of arguments to functions. i think this is called
defensive programming vs contract programming.
for example:
;; this first version of foo checks the validity of arguments inside
foo
(defn foo [context arg]
