Could we improve the error message for people who attempt to nest
regions
#lang scheme
(with-contract f1
((y number?))
(with-contract f2
((x boolean?))
(define x #t)
(define y 1)))
or
#lang scheme
(define (f x)
(with-contract
f1
((y number?))
(define y x)))
(f 10)
Thanks. -- Matthias
On Feb 14, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
In SVN I've added three new major features that involve contracts.
One allows for more fine-grained control of contracts, and the other
two allow for the use of contracts with signatures and units.
Contract Regions
----------------
Contract regions allow the programmer to protect a region of code
with a contract boundary. In addition to the wrapped code, the
programmer also provides a name for the region which is used in
blame situations and a list of exported variables which can
either be protected with contracts or unprotected. The region
provides a true contract boundary, in that uses of contracted
exports within the region are unprotected. Contract regions are
specified with the with-contract form. The following contract
region defines two mutually recursive functions:
(with-contract region1
([f (-> number? boolean?)]
[g (-> number? boolean?)])
(define (f n) (if (zero? n) #f (g (sub1 n))))
(define (g n) (if (zero? n) #t (f (sub1 n)))))
The internal calls to f and g are uncontracted, but calls to f
and g outside this region would be appropriately contracted.
First-order checks are performed at the region, so the
following region:
(with-contract region2
([n number?])
(define n #t))
results in the following error:
(region region2) broke the contract number? on n;
expected <number?>, given: #t
Notice that the blame not only gives the name of the region, but
describes what type of contract boundary was involved.
For contracting a single definition, there is the define/contract
form which has a similar syntax to define, except that it takes a
contract before the body of the definition. To compare the two
forms, the following two definitions are equivalent:
(with-contract fact
([fact (-> number? number?)])
(define (fact n)
(if (zero? n) 1 (* n (fact (sub1 n))))))
(define/contract (fact n)
(-> number? number?)
(if (zero? n) 1 (* n (fact (sub1 n)))))
First order checks are similarly performed at the definition for
define/contract, so
(define/contract (fact n)
(-> number?)
(if (zero? n) 1 (* n (fact (sub1 n)))))
results in
(function fact) broke the contract (-> number?) on fact;
expected a procedure that accepts no arguments without
any keywords, given: #<procedure:fact>
Signature Contracts
-------------------
In addition to contract regions, units are also now contract
boundaries. One way to use contracts with units is to add
contracts to unit signatures via the contracted signature form.
(define-signature toy-factory^
((contracted
[build-toys (-> integer? (listof toy?))]
[repaint (-> toy? symbol? toy?)]
[toy? (-> any/c boolean?)]
[toy-color (-> toy? symbol?)])))
Notice that contracts in a signature can use variables listed
in the signature.
Now if we take the following implementation of that signature:
(define-unit simple-factory@
(import)
(export toy-factory^)
(define-struct toy (color) #:transparent)
(define (build-toys n)
(for/list ([i (in-range n)])
(make-toy 'blue)))
(define (repaint t col)
(make-toy col)))
We get the appropriate contract checks on those exports:
> (define-values/invoke-unit/infer simple-factory@)
> (build-toys 3)
(#(struct:toy blue) #(struct:toy blue) #(struct:toy blue))
> (build-toys #f)
top-level broke the contract (-> integer? (listof toy?))
on build-toys; expected <integer?>, given: #f
As before, uses of contracted exports inside the unit are
not checked.
Since units are contract boundaries, they can be blamed
appropriately. Take the following definitions:
(define-unit factory-user@
(import toy-factory^)
(export)
(let ([toys (build-toys 3)])
(repaint 3 'blue)))
(define-compound-unit/infer factory+user@
(import) (export)
(link simple-factory@ factory-user@))
When we invoke the combined unit:
> (define-values/invoke-unit/infer factory+user@)
(unit factory-user@) broke the contract
(-> toy? symbol? toy?)
on repaint; expected <toy?>, given: 3
Unit Contracts
--------------
However, we may not always be able to add contracts to
signatures. For example, there are many already-existing
signatures in PLT Scheme that one may want to implement, or a
programmer may want to take a unit value and add contracts to it
after the fact.
To do this, there is the unit/c contract combinator. It takes a list
of imports and exports, where each signature is paired with a list of
variables and their contracts for each signature. So if we had the
uncontracted version of the toy-factory^ signature:
(define-signature toy-factory^
(build-toys repaint toy? toy-color))
the following contracts would be appropriate for a unit that imports
nothing and exports that signature:
(unit/c (import) (export))
(unit/c (import) (export toy-factory^))
(unit/c
(import)
(export (toy-factory^
[toy-color (-> toy? symbol?)])))
(unit/c
(import)
(export (toy-factory^
[build-toys (-> integer? (listof toy?))]
[repaint (-> toy? symbol? toy?)]
[toy? (-> any/c boolean?)]
[toy-color (-> toy? symbol?)])))
Unit contracts can contain a superset of the import signatures and a
subset of the export signatures for a given unit value. Also,
variables that are not listed for a given signature are left alone
when the contracts are being added.
Since the results of applying unit/c is a new unit, then adding
a contract can cause link inference to fail. For example, if we
change the definition of simple-factory@ above to
(define/contract simple-factory@
(unit/c
(import)
(export (toy-factory^
[build-toys (-> integer? (listof toy?))]
[repaint (-> toy? symbol? toy?)]
[toy? (-> any/c boolean?)]
[toy-color (-> toy? symbol?)])))
(unit
(import)
(export toy-factory^)
(define-struct toy (color) #:transparent)
(define (build-toys n)
(for/list ([i (in-range n)])
(make-toy 'blue)))
(define (repaint t col)
(make-toy col))))
Then when we try to combine it with the factory-user@ unit, we
get:
define-compound-unit/infer: not a unit definition
in: simple-factory@
One way to solve this is to use define-unit-binding to set up the
static information for the new contracted value. Another possibility
for unit definitions is to use define-unit/contract:
(define-unit/contract simple-factory@
(import)
(export (toy-factory^
[build-toys (-> integer? (listof toy?))]
[repaint (-> toy? symbol? toy?)]
[toy? (-> any/c boolean?)]
[toy-color (-> toy? symbol?)]))
(define-struct toy (color) #:transparent)
(define (build-toys n)
(for/list ([i (in-range n)])
(make-toy 'blue)))
(define (repaint t col)
(make-toy col)))
More about these features can be found in the Reference, and a short
section about signature and unit contracts has been added to the
Guide.
Stevie
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
