FWIW, I would have at least written:
((qty (in-range 0 (add1 (min (floor (/ weight-left weight))
(floor (/ volume-left volume)))))))
Looks much more readable to me.
I would probably have taken the `(add1 ....)' or the `(min ....)'
(depending which one makes more sense to be on its own) out of the `range',
because it seems semantically completely different to me.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote:
> (struct-open item item1 weight value volume)
>
I would love to see such an addition to core Racket!
Laurent
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
