On 2014-06-09 00:19:40 -0700, Eric Dobson wrote: > One issue I see is that we need an unforgeable property that the value > actually came from the typed world so we know that eliding the new > contract is safe. > > Does this seem like a reasonable thing to support/do people see issues with > it?
A potentially useful generalization of this that's not just for TR is to avoid duplicate complex check ons values (no types involved), making complicated contracts more feasible. Imagine a contract that parses a string to see if it is a valid IP address, for example. Would this only work for higher-order/behavioral values/types though? (i.e., not my IP example) Cheers, Asumu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
