On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robby Findler > <[email protected]> wrote: >> So far as I understand it, we have: Stevie opposed, Matthias neutral, >> Robby and Casey for, with everyone agreeing that we should try to >> preserve the "Carl constraints" of 'single contract wrapper' and 'same >> identifier-ness'. >> >> Note that in the current world we are *forced* to break the first of >> the Carl constraints. So I consider this a bonus if we achieve it (and >> so if we don't in some cases, I don't think we should care). >> >> Is that a correct summary of the status? > > Given the performance impacts of rewrapping, it seems like solving > that problem should be a prerequisite for changing the semantics of > `provide' to automatically add non-trivial contracts. I think it > would be pretty problematic to suddenly add repeated list traversals > to any code that reprovides identifiers.
At the moment, we're force to rewrap to get the right semantics. That is, show me a (real) module that re-exports contracts with any/c and I'll show you a way to blame that module and the solution will have to be a rewrapping (or a moving of the contracts). And I'm talking about real code, not made up examples, of course. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
