On 04. 12. 19 20:21, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think it makes sense to refine the contract to guarantee a fixnum
> result for `vector-length`.
>
> This fact is currently documented in `unsafe-vetcor-length`, because
> that's the layer where it has seemed sensible to talk about fixnums in
> the past, but that's not where anyone would think to look. Meanwhile,
> the contract for unsafe operation doesn't specify a nonnegative fixnum
> as it should.
>
> At Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:07:47 -0500, George Neuner wrote:
>>
>>
>> It would be more correct to use (and/c fixnum? (or/c zero? positive?))
>> to explicitly limit the value.
My impression is - so far - that (and/c fixnum? (or/c zero? positive?))
or (and/c fixnum? exact-nonnegative-integer?) should be the right way to
go with vector-length.
What about all the vector-ref, -set! and basically all indices
contracts? That should probably be the same.
Also updating the contracts for unsafe-vector-* seems reasonable to me.
Dominik
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/f54df855-6ffd-4979-0f58-2126c80f577d%40trustica.cz.
