[racket-dev] exact nonnegative integers as sequences?

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.)