No, this can't work. For example, how would you generate a contract for (Mutable-Setof (-> Integer Integer))? At least, that's my sense of it -- maybe something like that could work but I don't see how yet.
Sam On Sat, Mar 9, 2019, 12:55 PM Phil Nguyen <philnguyen0...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm attempting to add type bindings for mutable sets. I can't reuse the > existing `Setof` type constructor because it is covariant. Is it possible > to declare an opaque new type constructor `Mutable-Setof` in the > `require/typed` clause? > > Thanks. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
