[racket-dev] exact nonnegative integers as sequences?

From: Matthew Flatt (mflatt at cs.utah.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 18 09:52:48 EDT 2011

At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:34:34 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> FWIW, I don't like that any of these 'in-*' thigns are optional. I was
> recently reading over a script that was used to build web pages from
> the output of testing runs for my compilers class and there were
> several nested for loops without in-* thingies and it was painfully
> difficult for me to reconstruct what the contracts of the functions
> were because of that.

Was the contract just "sequence", or did the values that were used as
sequences in `for' also flow to places with more specific contracts?

(We probably agree that generic programming is good, so I'm trying to
understand why it seemed counterproductive in your example.)

Posted on the dev mailing list.