Re: assume-just Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 17 Jun 2020 07:27 UTC
Am Mi., 17. Juni 2020 um 04:39 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.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?