-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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 ;)
There was a problem hiding this 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)] | ||
) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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. |
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 ;)