On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Stevie Strickland <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Doug Williams wrote: >> On the case-> problem, it seems it no longer supports anything but ->. Is >> there something I am missing there? > > This is a current limitation for case-> as provided by racket/contract. When > I tackle the conversion of case-> to proxies/chaperones, I plan on also > removing this limitation if possible. If it works out, case-> should work > with contract values given for the clauses (and also any type of arrow > contract value) instead of being limited to direct uses of the simple -> > combinator.
What would happen if I had a contract like this: (case-> (-> integer? integer?) (-> boolean? boolean?)) Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
