On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> In replying to the below, I'm not ignoring the rest of your message.
>
>> By, the way, why'd you decide on "numeq" instead of
>> "number=?".
>
> I don't think there's a good verbal choice here (though numeq is
> especially ugly). Yo
In replying to the below, I'm not ignoring the rest of your message.
> By, the way, why'd you decide on "numeq" instead of
> "number=?".
I don't think there's a good verbal choice here (though numeq is
especially ugly). You can already write plain ol' =, as in,
=(1, 2)
-- evaluates to -->
I know I'm in the minority, but I would love early support for
contracts. I'm not sure how to fit it in the syntax you've got so far,
but something like
deffun: copy(img, num) =
with-contract: image?, number? -> image
if: numeq(num, 1)
img
else:
beside(img, copy(img, -(
3 matches
Mail list logo
