On 9/19/10 8:45 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
I've added a construct equivalent to check-expect:
test:<expr> =?<expr>
is equivalent to
(check-expect<expr> <expr>)
You can see examples.rkt rewritten to use it almost everywhere.
I like this experiment. Two quick remarks:
- I wish conditionals were lighter weight.
Maybe cond: Q0, A0, ... else: An
- I wish it were easier to predict names and syntax for special forms.
I would have guessed
check-expect: e0 e1
or
check-expect: e0, e1
Choices of names seem independent of surface syntax details, so why
should they change if we change those details?
And doesn't the use of `=' and `=?' keywords violate your
"Distinguishing Keywords" choice? I would expect `=:' and `=?:' for
consistency.
David
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
