assume-just
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(16 Jun 2020 20:29 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
John Cowan
(17 Jun 2020 02:39 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Jun 2020 07:27 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
Shiro Kawai
(17 Jun 2020 07:33 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Jun 2020 08:00 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
Shiro Kawai
(17 Jun 2020 08:15 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Jun 2020 09:50 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
Arthur A. Gleckler
(17 Jun 2020 17:17 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Jun 2020 17:23 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
Arthur A. Gleckler
(17 Jun 2020 17:52 UTC)
|
Re: assume-just
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Jun 2020 18:27 UTC)
|
Am Mi., 17. Juni 2020 um 04:39 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>: > > While this is unobjectionable in itself, it's hard to know where to stop. One of the SRFI 145 examples is (assume (exact-integer? x) ...). This could be changed to (assume-exact-integer x ...), but I don't think it would be very useful to add this macro to a SRFI. That's a good point. So the only reasonable way to have an implementation of the semantics of assume-just in a SRFI would be to make the parameter FAILURE of maybe-ref optional again so that the default is (lambda () (assume #f "just expected")). What do you think?