Re: [racket] (if ...) form without an else

[I'm adding Racket-users to cc. Please make sure to Reply to All so that the rest of the mailing list can contribute.] > i generally do use when/unless for one armed (if ...) syntax and agree > strongly with strict enforcement of three-part ifs, as described in > http://lists.racket-lang.org/use

Re: [racket] (if ...) form without an else

On 2012-04-11 11:42:20 -0700, lothar atheling wrote: > usually an (if ...) form without an else part does not cause an error. > > but sometimes it does, as the following shows: In what situation does a single-branch `if` succeed for you? >From the Racket guide: "An if form must have both a the

Re: [racket] (if ...) form without an else

Hi Lothar, The if statement in Racket always requires three arguments: (if test-expr then-expr else-expr) if you only want a

Re: [racket] (if ...) form without an else

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, lothar atheling wrote: > > usually an (if ...) form without an else part does not cause an error. > > but sometimes it does, as the following shows: > > > if: bad syntax (must have an "else" expression) in: (if isinitialised > (expose)) > > why the different behavi

[racket] (if ...) form without an else

usually an (if ...) form without an else part does not cause an error. but sometimes it does, as the following shows: if: bad syntax (must have an "else" expression) in: (if isinitialised (expose)) why the different behavior? -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.