Skip to content

added update functions #19

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

added update functions #19

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

dys-bigwig
Copy link

Hope that's alright. Couldn't decide which names would be best for the dummy functions required for ref and set-ref in the define/generic forms. Hopefully there won't be alternate versions of ref or set-ref in the future that would be more deserving of said names ;)

Hope that's alright. Couldn't decide which names would be best for the dummy functions required for ref and set-ref in the define/generic forms. Hopefully there won't be alternate versions of ref or set-ref in the future that would be more deserving of said names ;)
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jul 10, 2019

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.2%) to 89.785% when pulling 39d75a3 on dys-bigwig:patch-1 into 5b3ec9b on lexi-lambda:master.

Copy link
Owner

@lexi-lambda lexi-lambda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change needs tests and documentation, but the implementation looks fine.

(define set-ref set-nth)]))
(define set-ref set-nth)
(define update-ref update-nth)]
)
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please don’t put close parentheses on their own line.

@AlexKnauth
Copy link
Contributor

Are sets "intended" to be indexable by natural number even though there isn't a definitive order of elements? That's what's causing the test failures

@dys-bigwig
Copy link
Author

Are sets "intended" to be indexable by natural number even though there isn't a definitive order of elements? That's what's causing the test failures

When I realised they worked with ref and set-ref, I tested them and seemed to get consistent results regarding the ordering of the first two items. However, I don't think the test is helpful, and the results clearly aren't consistent. I'll remove the test.
Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants