This is the most nonsensical sentence I have seen in a long time.
I should keep it around as a bad example.
On Jun 2, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> From the Ars Technica article, second paragraph:
>
> "Swift seems to get rid of Objective C's reliance on defined pointers;
> instead, th
On 2014-06-01 17:49:59 -0600, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> Based on this commit, I feel like "assert" would be a better name than
> "invariant-assertion".
FWIW, it may be confusing if both Racket and TR provide an `assert`
function (especially if `assert` ends up being part of #lang racket).
Cheers,
Asu
>From the Ars Technica article, second paragraph:
"Swift seems to get rid of Objective C's reliance on defined pointers;
instead, the compiler infers the variable type, just as many scripting
languages do."
Is it just me, or is almost everything about this sentence technically
wrong, except the p
.. announced Swift, its Objective C replacement (?):
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/06/apple-shows-off-swift-its-new-programming-language/
https://developer.apple.com/swift/
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/
On Jun 2, 2014, at 2:06 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> Your research suggests that contracts are the only meaningful higher-order
> assertions, so this thing is assert/higher-order and the contract DSL is the
> right way to specify the condition.
I am not sure I would go this far. Suppose you want
5 matches
Mail list logo
