From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu) Date: Fri Apr 20 12:50:03 EDT 2007 Previous message: [plt-scheme] Questions about contracts Next message: [plt-scheme] Questions about contracts Messages sorted by: [date] [thread] [subject] [author]

```We've updated the guide to the contract system with an example use of
unconstrained-domain->, based on this discussion.

http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~robby/plt-contracts-guide/

Thanks again.

Robby

On 4/17/07, Chongkai Zhu <czhu at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> Thank you very much. The new combinator seems to cover all cases I know that doesn't work with yesterday's contract system, although I need to read the doc to make sure.
>
> Chongkai
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robby Findler" <robby at cs.uchicago.edu>
> To: "Chongkai Zhu" <czhu at cs.utah.edu>
> Cc: "pltscheme" <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] Questions about contracts
>
>
> > On 4/16/07, Chongkai Zhu <czhu at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> >> Than my question is: how to write a correct contract
> >> for cases like this?
> >
> > I think that it wasn't possible to express that contract in
> > yesterday's contract system. So, I've added a new contract combinator.
> > It accepts functions and puts no constraints on their arities, but
> > does but a constraint on their ranges. You can combine this with other
> > contracts to get the effect you (seem to) want.
> >
> > Below is an example use (the docs should be out tomorrow when the
> > nightly build completes). In general, unconstrained-domain-> accepts
> > one argument for each (multiple value) result the function produces
> > and it puts no constraint on the arity of the function.
> >
> > I hope that helps.
> >
> > Robby
> >
>

```

 Posted on the users mailing list. Previous message: [plt-scheme] Questions about contracts Next message: [plt-scheme] Questions about contracts Messages sorted by: [date] [thread] [subject] [author]