On 10/31/20, jackh...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm not sure, but I have a feeling Ben's suggestion to make them functions
> instead of macros wasn't about the performance implications of macros.
Right. I was only thinking that macros are hard to build on. But then,
I can use dictof/proc here.
--
You
Yes.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 9:36 AM Don Green
wrote:
> Should I be posting questions about Racket in us...@racket-lang.org?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
I'm still thinking about Ben's example but I'm seeing the description right
at the top in the examples below. What am I missing?
Robby
#lang racket
(module m racket
(provide
(contract-out
[f (->i ([x integer?])
#:pre/desc (x)
(or (> x 5)
"must be
Should I be posting questions about Racket in us...@racket-lang.org?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
T
On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 10:32:22 AM UTC+1 jackh...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is definitely a useful thing to have and I've wanted it myself
> before. However I'm generally of the opinion that we should avoid making
> more collection manipulation functions that are unnecessarily specialize
I have the same issue for ->i contracts. I'll write multiple #:pre/desc
checks with nice messages, which are promptly rendered useless by the fact
that ->i prints out the whole contract instead of just the precondition
check that failed.
On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 7:16:59 PM UTC-7 Ben Greenm
I'm not sure, but I have a feeling Ben's suggestion to make them functions
instead of macros wasn't about the performance implications of macros. I
think it was about this particular symmetry:
- A (list 1 'apple "banana") is a (list/c number? symbol? string?)
- A (hash 'a 1 'b "foo") is a (dicto
Wow, these are a lot of great responses. First of all, *awesome* job Ryan.
That implementation is exactly what I needed to figure out. I'm definitely
starting there first.
> Are you looking for `let/ec`?
I'd forgotten about that one. That has the *syntax* I want. However my
issue with continua
This is definitely a useful thing to have and I've wanted it myself before.
However I'm generally of the opinion that we should avoid making more
collection manipulation functions that are unnecessarily specialized to one
type of collection. I'd like to see functions that operate on all sequence
9 matches
Mail list logo
