At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:34:34 -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > FWIW, I don't like that any of these 'in-*' thigns are optional. I was > recently reading over a script that was used to build web pages from > the output of testing runs for my compilers class and there were > several nested for loops without in-* thingies and it was painfully > difficult for me to reconstruct what the contracts of the functions > were because of that.
Was the contract just "sequence", or did the values that were used as sequences in `for' also flow to places with more specific contracts? (We probably agree that generic programming is good, so I'm trying to understand why it seemed counterproductive in your example.) _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
