Matthew rules.
On Jun 10, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > 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
