I have added a note on this issue to the Style issue; see section 3.6. Strictly speaking, this prose probably belongs into the Contract guide. -- Matthias
On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote: > You can have mutually recursive functions with define/contract, but you can't > with submodules. > > Ryan > > On 11/30/2012 05:04 PM, Ray Racine wrote: >> Why not make this explicit by deprecating define/contract and support >> this use case with a submodule. They lightweight enough and makes >> boundary demarcations consistent, explicit and simple. Module -> boundary. >> >> On Nov 30, 2012 12:05 PM, "Matthias Felleisen" <matth...@ccs.neu.edu >> <mailto:matth...@ccs.neu.edu>> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: >> >> >> This is a complete misunderstanding. >> > >> > Sometimes I feel like a kid in the room while the adults are talking. >> > When it comes to contracts, I have to stipulate that most of you are >> > smarter than me and have thought about this longer than me. >> >> >> Apologies. My opening wasn't meant to say "I am smarter" but I wanted >> to send a strong message about define/contract. It really introduces a >> boundary and in some strange sense your (possibly misleading) >> microbenchmark >> exposes this constraint too. >> >> >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >> >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
