The docs are right; I wrote the last sentence backwards. Sorry. On Monday, May 30, 2011, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> wrote: > Sam, are you referring to this text? > The any/c contract is similar to any, in that it makes no demands on a > value. Unlike any, any/c indicates a single value, and it is > > suitable for use as an argument contract. > This would seem to suggest that any is actually more general, becauseany/c > seems to require a single value whereas any (by implication) > > permits more or less than one. This is compounded by the later text: > Use any/c as a result contract when it is particularly important to > promise a single result from a function. Use any when you want to > > promise as little as possible (and incur as little checking as possible) > for a function's result. > which again points to a single/any-number-of value(s) distinction. > > > But then in his email Robby says > As for the any/c vs any: they are two separate things. "any/c" is general > purpose contract that allows anything. "any" is special > > syntax that is only allowed inside function contracts. You can think of > "any" as a more restricted form of "any/c" and that's 95% of the story. > > > which I have difficulty reconciling with the docs quotes. > Shriram >
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
