I'm more in favor of using `(and/c real? (not/c negative?))'.
At Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:08:35 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > Make a real predicate and link to it. > > > On Jun 10, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I've seen some locations in the docs where a currently imaginary > > predicate is used as a contract. > > > > e.g. the sleep function has a nonnegative-number? contract > > > > The same contract is often expressed as > > (and/c real? (not/c negative?)) > > in many locations. > > > > e.g. the get-extent method for snip%, methods for editor<%>, text%, etc. > > > > It seems like the imaginary contract should be replaced with an actual > > one. Should it be replaced by the combinator expression above in the > > docs or can a predicate be made for this [somewhat common] case? > > > > Cheers, > > Asumu > > _________________________________________________ > > For list-related administrative tasks: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
