[racket] Size matters

FWIW, I would have at least written:

       ((qty (in-range 0 (add1 (min (floor (/ weight-left weight))
                                    (floor (/ volume-left volume)))))))

Looks much more readable to me.
I would probably have taken the `(add1 ....)' or the `(min ....)'
(depending which one makes more sense to be on its own) out of the `range',
because it seems semantically completely different to me.

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>wrote:

>      (struct-open item item1 weight value volume)
>

I would love to see such an addition to core Racket!

Laurent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20130610/5ebda409/attachment.html>