On Oct 24, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > What would happen if I had a contract like this: > > (case-> (-> integer? integer?) (-> boolean? boolean?))
One of two things: a) You'd get an error for having overlapping arities in your contracts. This is the most likely to be implemented, at least at first, since I believe that's what current case-> does, right? I'd do a quick spot check, but I'm rebuilding Racket at the moment. b) You'd filter the contracts by arity, and then at the overlaps, you'd have to resort to first-order checks on the arguments to decide which argument/result contracts to apply. With the above contract, that would disambiguate, but obviously there could be overlaps even after first-order checks (structs with prop:procedure, for example). Stevie _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
