In this case, the contract could turn into a dependent one with the same semantics. Does it make sense for TR to allow a user to declare the equivalent contract?
Robby On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Neil Toronto <[email protected]> wrote: > Ten minutes in, I've hit a snag. I'd like the stuff in math/functions to > have precise types. For example, log1p could have the type > > (case-> (Zero -> Zero) > (Float -> Float) > (Real -> Real)) > > It was easy to get the implementation to typecheck, but when I tried to plot > it in untyped Racket, I got this: > > Type Checker: The type of log1p cannot be converted to a contract in: log1p > > I really don't want to have two versions of the library. Could TR use the > most general type (Real -> Real) as the contract? Or would that be unsound? > > Neil ⊥ > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
