On Apr 15, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mikko Tiihonen <[email protected]> wrote:
> as I dissected the code it became clear to me that my implementation had been > far from clean. One of the problems was that the responsibility for checking > return values was not in the function returning the value, but in the calling > function. > > The main thing seems to be that I need to check return values for type and > also for range. After some refactorings I have transferred the responsibility > for checking these values so that testing became easier. Also, It starts to > look like typed Racket would be an appropriate solution for making the code > more robust. It sounds like you are reinventing contracts. Are they powerful enough to give you what you want? ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
