IMO defining `Path-String' in a way that doesn't correspond to
`path-string?' is not a good idea. I'd prefer it if the name was
changed or if the type changes to accurately reflect the predicate.
(The latter might be more problematic since it probably implies doing
more checking than done now,
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
IMO defining `Path-String' in a way that doesn't correspond to
`path-string?' is not a good idea. I'd prefer it if the name was
changed or if the type changes to accurately reflect the predicate.
I this this is a place
Actually I don't think this is an over sight. The null string is a String.
And Path-String is Path U String, but (path-string? (string #\null)) = #f.
Sent from a mobile device.
On Mar 21, 2012 5:14 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Sam
That's true, which is why it has to have a more complex filter than
you'd expect. But if a value isn't `path-string?', then it is
definitely not a `Path', and if it *is* `path-string?' then it's
either a `String' or a `Path'. So we can express an approximation of
it's behavior in the type.
On
It looks like 'path-string?' is not labeled as a discriminator type.
path-string?
- : (Any - Boolean)
#procedure:path-string?
Is this just an oversight?
John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_
Racket Developers list:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:36 PM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
It looks like 'path-string?' is not labeled as a discriminator type.
path-string?
- : (Any - Boolean)
#procedure:path-string?
Is this just an oversight?
Yes, that's just an oversight, although it's slightly
On Mar 21, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:36 PM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
It looks like 'path-string?' is not labeled as a discriminator type.
path-string?
- : (Any - Boolean)
#procedure:path-string?
Is this just an
7 matches
Mail list logo
