Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 10 Jul 2020 17:30 UTC
On 2020-07-10 16:39 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > A better implementation would be (maybe-if m j n) => (if (maybe? m) > (if (just? m) j n) (error "...")). > > Note that this better implementation even conforms to the current > wording in SRFI 189. Not meaning to extend an already dense thread, I'm still going to jump in here. I don't think that an implementation of maybe-if (or the other other SRFI 189 macros) using assume conforms to the current spec. Namely, it isn't stated anywhere in SRFI 145 that an object raised by assume satisfies error-object?. (On the strength of this, I did some work yesterday to make the macro implementations into more unassuming code, using error throughout.) Is this interpretation correct, or would assume be acceptable here? -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "In the military more is not better." --_Sun Tzu_