I was somewhat surprised to see today that I can’t use a predicate with both
positive and negative propositions in the way I would expect with partition:
> (:print-type partition)
(All (a b)
(case->
(-> (-> b Any : #:+ a) (Listof b) (values (Listof a) (Listof b)))
(-> (-> a Any) (Listof a) (values (Listof a) (Listof a)))))
Specifically, I would have expected the type to be something like this:
(All (a b c)
(case->
(-> (-> b Any : #:+ a) (Listof b) (values (Listof a) (Listof b)))
;; the second list must consist of 'c's:
(-> (-> b Any : #:+ a #:- c) (Listof b) (values (Listof a) (Listof c)))
(-> (-> a Any) (Listof a) (values (Listof a) (Listof a)))))
… so that if, say, I had a list of Elephants and Emus, that I could use
elephant? to split it into two lists: one of type (Listof Elephant) and one of
type (Listof Emu).
I tried to roll my own, and got pretty close:
(: my-partition
(All (a b c)
(case->
;; the second list must consist of 'c's:
(-> (-> b Any : #:+ a #:- c) (Listof b) (values (Listof a) (Listof c)))
)))
(define (my-partition my-pred elts)
(cond [(empty? elts)
(values '() '())]
[else
(define-values (stacks non-stacks)
(my-partition my-pred (rest elts)))
(define f (first elts))
(cond [(my-pred f)
(values (cons f stacks)
non-stacks)]
[else
(values stacks (cons f non-stacks))])]))
That is, I can do it for the case-> clause that I care about. Putting the other
two back in there causes it to fail type-checking. Is that the problem, that TR
can’t accommodate both flavors in the same type?
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/aa1e77a8-9cc4-4f99-b413-1304daeec12b%40mtasv.net.
