Ian, sets are now a generic datatype, like dictionaries. Association lists are dictionaries, and lists are now sets. They're also streams and sequences. They're not just "set-like".
Carl Eastlund On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:56 PM, J. Ian Johnson <i...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > I just wasted about 2 hours tracking down a bug that ended up being due to > (set? '()) now evaluating to #t. I have no problems with set-union, > intersection, etc. being defined for lists, but to treat lists as sets > always is perverse to me. The contracts for set operations should use > set-like? for (or/c set? list?) and keep the two constructions separate. > > This conflation is almost as bad as treating empty list as false. > > -Ian > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
