On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 21:16 +0300, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> I always knew this, but today, I became totally convinced how bad an
> effect this procedure name has on people. Whoever came up with this
> name should be punished by typing it 1000 times. It's so much easier
> to write (error 'foo ---) even when it's not the correct procedure to
> use. Such a stupid name for such a common use.
>
> Phew. Now I feel better.
Hehehe. Yeah, that's why I've got my define/AV, define/?, and
define/?/AV:
> (import (xitomatl define))
> (define/AV (foo x)
(unless (= 1 x)
(AV "oops" x))
(/ x))
> (foo 2)
Unhandled exception
Condition components:
1. &assertion
2. &who: foo
3. &message: "oops"
4. &irritants: (2)
> (define/? (bar (x char?))
(string x))
> (bar 1)
Unhandled exception
Condition components:
1. &assertion
2. &who: bar
3. &message: "argument check failed"
4. &irritants: (1)
5. &argument-name: x
6. &predicate-expression: char?
--
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------
