Speaking of invariants, from time to time I would like Racket to know some
properties about its usual operators, so that some usual treatments get
simplified and can be easily generalized.
For example, considering group theory, properties like 'identity-element',
'absorbing-elements',
C++ has tried this tack for some time. I can see doing for built-ins but how
would you go about programmer-created operations? Trust the programmer? --
Matthias
On May 5, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Laurent wrote:
Speaking of invariants, from time to time I would like Racket to know some
On May 5, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Laurent wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.edu
wrote:
C++ has tried this tack for some time.
Sounds like it has failed then.
I can see doing for built-ins but how would you go about programmer-created
operations?
Each existing properties can come with a batch of generic test to test some
usual corner cases, to check that property holds.
It would indeed be easier if some elements of the domain/range could be
given (or an automatic generator).
Random testing would be good, but I don't think it's necessary to
On May 5, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Laurent wrote:
Do you know why C++ has stopped pursuing this idea by any chance?
No, and they may have more work going on besides standard work.
It's worth reading up on it if you're interested.
_
Racket Developers list:
Would you happen to have a reference on that?
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Matthias Felleisen matth...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
On May 5, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Laurent wrote:
Do you know why C++ has stopped pursuing this idea by any chance?
No, and they may have more work going on besides
:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Racket2 suggestion: Attaching properties to operators
...or keywords that would simplify my search. Don't take too much time digging
old references that will not be much more than informative to me.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:16 PM
7 matches
Mail list logo
