for-all's signature suggests multiple expressions are allowed, but this doesn't work as you'd expect

Description

The signature of for-all, which includes & body, might suggest you could write something like:

That works, but IIUC not as you might expect; in that only the latter expr is checked. I'm not sure if the signature should be amended, or if for-all should just create a fn for each of those exprs. The latter is more work, but seems more useful.

Environment

None

Activity

Show:
gfredericks
September 10, 2016, 11:54 PM

I appreciate the confusion, and I think maybe keeping it to one expression would have been a better idea, but at this point it can't be changed in a backwards-compatible way.

I'm planning to overhaul the docstrings before the next release though, so I will make sure to clarify this.

gfredericks
April 8, 2018, 9:31 PM

Clarified this behavior in the docstring, and added TCHECK-146 as a possible future enhancement.

Completed

Assignee

gfredericks

Reporter

lvh

Labels

Approval

None

Patch

None

Priority

Minor