[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A bit further toward the flamewar
From: |
Ian Price |
Subject: |
Re: A bit further toward the flamewar |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:07:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) |
Linas Vepstas <address@hidden> writes:
> I have no clue why it never occurred to me to use the above paradigm,
> I will definitely start experimenting with it.
>
> Any clue on how to indicate that func returns type 'X' ?
>
> I don't know if you were trying to make this point but: if one were to
> code in the above paradigm, and also throw some srfi-9000 syntactic
> sugar at it, one might be able to get something that resembled
> ocaml/haskell type declarations. And, for the code that I deal with,
> this might be the bees knees.
Just because scheme doesn't have type declarations doesn't mean you
can't add them. I often write code that looks like
; partition : (A -> Boolean) Listof(A) -> Listof(A) Listof(A)
(define (partition pred list) ...)
and I also make heavy use of 'assert', and less frequently, a macro of
mine called 'assert-lambda' which looks like
(lambda ((a procedure?) (b list?)) ...)
I don't, in general, check return types, but I do try and make sure that
they obey the declaration comment. Having a built-in type/contract
syntax, like Racket has, would be nice as I could move these comments
into code, but this is better than nothing.
--
Ian Price
"Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is
the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled"
- Re: Why is guile still so slow?, (continued)
- Re: Why is guile still so slow?, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/13
- A bit further toward the flamewar, rixed, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Linas Vepstas, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Mike Gran, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Linas Vepstas, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, address@hidden, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar,
Ian Price <=
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/14
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Linas Vepstas, 2011/10/14
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/17
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/14
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Linas Vepstas, 2011/10/14
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/14
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Hans Aberg, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Panicz Maciej Godek, 2011/10/14
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, rixed, 2011/10/13