On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:40 AM, namekuseijin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:13 AM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
;; NOW I'M A STUDENT:
;; only-long-strings : (listof string) - (listof string)
;; return a list containing the strings longer than 2 chars
(define/noloop
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:13 AM, John Clements
cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
;; NOW I'M A STUDENT:
;; only-long-strings : (listof string) - (listof string)
;; return a list containing the strings longer than 2
I see the reasoning now, I apologize. It's a good choice for
students, not so sure about ye old daily buggy sofware maintenance.
OTOH, perhaps if this practice was widespread it would lead to less
bugs or at least more maintenable software. At least for those aware
of this idiom.
On Wed, Nov
2. There are a few real problems with gr2:
http://drdr.racket-lang.org/21452/collects/tests/gracket/dc.rktl
Fixed already.
http://drdr.racket-lang.org/21452/collects/tests/plot/run-tests.rkt
Now fixed.
_
For list-related administrative
The value in the large comes when the data structures are more complex
(in the function below you'd use a loop or filter, of course). When
they are larger, you can pinpoint where to change your function based
on a change to your data definition.
For example, consider writing an interpreter. Now
A factor of 2.+.
(We could provide a type system, take away recursion, and replace it with a
structural induction form. It would be impossible to write infinite loops.)
On Nov 10, 2010, at 12:41 PM, John Clements wrote:
On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Your
The set library is missing a convenient way of selecting an element from
a set, making it hard to write recursive functions matching the
inductive structure of a set.
Could you add this function, or something like it?
(define (set-choose s)
(let ((x (for/first ([x (in-set s)])
HtDP in Coq? Hadn't thought of of that before...
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
A factor of 2.+.
(We could provide a type system, take away recursion, and replace it with a
structural induction form. It would be impossible to write infinite
8 matches
Mail list logo
