9 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Thanks for the clarifications, and I now agree that it's not about
> genericity.
>
> I think it's about scripts to programs, though. In a script, not
> having to type `(in-range ....)' or `(in-list ....)' feels
> worthwhile. You make a good point that those scriptish shortcuts can
> make understanding the code a little harder, and using `in-range' or
> `in-list' can good for long-term maintenance. Still, I think it's
> better to allow the shortcuts.
Is there any difference between this and other generic operations
(which could also benefit from types being more explicit and more
checked)?
[Not intended as a flame -- I'm curious to see if there's something
makes some generics be worse than others.]
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
