racket-collections
racket-collections copied to clipboard
added update functions
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 ;)
Coverage increased (+0.2%) to 89.785% when pulling 39d75a3a5099110108de4f50ae4c817cc9c68029 on dys-bigwig:patch-1 into 5b3ec9b3ea3ca493f3fcda4994b81bc804f29870 on lexi-lambda:master.
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
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.