Better types #15
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "better-types"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
@@ -126,18 +126,17 @@ return Sex code.(puts ,message)Missing bracket one closing there is, senses of mine telling me, young Sexwalker.
And that doesn't look as valid C.
@@ -48,0 +50,4 @@(if (and (list? type)(= 1 (length type)))(car type)type))Looks like this code can be extracted into a function with a slight readability boost (if named properly).
Something like this:
And here we can reuse it
That function is a little complex, would be nice to have unit tests for it.
Also could fold-right be replaced with flatten?
Gosh it's fucking torture to write and edit lisp snippets on github.
Oh! That's similar
@@ -126,18 +126,17 @@ return Sex code.(puts ,message)😱
@@ -126,18 +126,17 @@ return Sex code.(puts ,message)😱
@@ -48,0 +50,4 @@(if (and (list? type)(= 1 (length type)))(car type)type))Yes. Qualifies as self-harm.
@@ -48,0 +50,4 @@(if (and (list? type)(= 1 (length type)))(car type)type))🤯
@@ -48,0 +50,4 @@(if (and (list? type)(= 1 (length type)))(car type)type))🤯
@@ -126,18 +126,17 @@ return Sex code.(puts ,message)🤯
@@ -48,0 +50,4 @@(if (and (list? type)(= 1 (length type)))(car type)type))In general, it could not:
However, here we can, I think. There shouldn't be any meaningful nesting in
cv*type chains.It's implicitly tested via all
walk-typetests. However, I agree that it would be nice to have some test specifically for this function.Good stuff, good stuff. But there's a smol momentik left :eye:👁️
What of it?
@@ -126,18 +126,17 @@ return Sex code.(puts ,message)There was not. You bamboozled me!

Looks just right idk.

Ah shit, I see now. 👁️ 👄 👁️
@@ -126,18 +126,17 @@ return Sex code.(puts ,message)Why paren mathing is fucked up I guess, silly komputer haha
Seriously, look here mate

@@ -126,18 +126,17 @@ return Sex code.(puts ,message)🤤