Re: [racket-users] change 'random' contract to allow zero in first position?

https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/1626 -- 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. For more options, visit

Re: [racket-users] change 'random' contract to allow zero in first position?

> On Mar 3, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Daniel Prager wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:21 AM, John Clements > wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Daniel Prager wrote: > > > > While we're at it, please

Re: [racket-users] change 'random' contract to allow zero in first position?

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:21 AM, John Clements wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Daniel Prager > wrote: > > > > While we're at it, please allow negative arguments too, to allow for > cases such as > > > > (random -100 100) > > Well,

Re: [racket-users] change 'random' contract to allow zero in first position?

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 2:06 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > > I think that the contract is overly specific on the 2 argument case. > But on the 1 argument case, I don't think 0 makes sense: > > "When called with an integer argument k, returns a random exact > integer in the

Re: [racket-users] change 'random' contract to allow zero in first position?

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Daniel Prager wrote: > > While we're at it, please allow negative arguments too, to allow for cases > such as > > (random -100 100) Well, that’s different; that’s actually changing the implementation. I’m not proposing that… John

Re: [racket-users] change 'random' contract to allow zero in first position?

While we're at it, please allow negative arguments too, to allow for cases such as (random -100 100) Dan -- 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

Re: [racket-users] change 'random' contract to allow zero in first position?

I think that the contract is overly specific on the 2 argument case. But on the 1 argument case, I don't think 0 makes sense: "When called with an integer argument k, returns a random exact integer in the range 0 to k-1."[k <- 0] =_v "When called with an integer argument 0, returns a random exact

[racket-users] change 'random' contract to allow zero in first position?

I have a bunch of students this quarter that are writing code like this: (- (random 1 9) 1) Why? because they tried writing (random 0 8) and got a contract error, to wit: random: contract violation expected: (integer-in 1 4294967087) given: 0 > I’m assuming that this contract was