On Friday, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 01:12 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Recently I was using the `stx-car` function from `syntax/stx`. At some
> > point, I had called it on a non-syntax pair and the error message came
> > from `car`, which is used inside the implementation of `stx-car`.
> >
> > I thought it would be nice to add contracts in `syntax/stx` for better
> > error messages, but it turns out that the contract library depends on it
> > and so it's impossible to do without introducing cycles.
> >
> > So I would like to propose a `syntax/syntax` library with the following:
> > * provides `syntax/stx` functions with contracts attached
> > (caveat: core libraries like `racket/contract` would still use
> > `syntax/stx`)
> > * for consistency with the rest of the language, `stx-car` and
> > friends would be renamed to use the `syntax-` prefix instead of
> > `stx-`.
>
> -1
-1 too, because it's dealing with a dependency spaghetti situation by
adding another inter-collection line instead of removing one.
> I sometimes wonder if we should make a racket/pre-contracts
> subcollection and just stuff all of racket/contract/base's
> dependencies in there, then say everything else is allowed (maybe
> even expected) to use contracts.
I don't see how that would help -- you'll still get the same errors.
As for the above problem, `syntax/stx' is pretty simple, so maybe the
functionality can be done directly in the contracts code. (And that
removes a dependency.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
