[plt-scheme] Contracts on Libraries

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 8 11:33:28 EDT 2007

That code doesn't work for all possible uses of contracts. It is there
to help me do performance debugging of the contract library.

As with everything, this is a question of priorities. I do see some
demand, but there are enough other things that I think are more
important at the moment that I won't be able to get to it soon.


On 6/8/07, Dave Gurnell <d.j.gurnell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> efficiency
> >> shouldn't be too bad.  Scheme already has safety checks on many
> >> operations; as far as I'm concerned adding new checks to new
> >> operations is just standard overhead.
> >>
> >> If you have a really speed-sensitive library, you could always expose
> >> both the contracted and uncontracted modules and let users choose.
> >
> > Which is pretty much the same thing as having contracts you can turn
> > on and off =).
> >
> > I see demand.
> I use contracts like I used to use assertions in C and Java, so I'm
> kind of in favour of allowing them to be en/disabled. I see there is
> code in contract.ss that can be uncommented to disable contracts.
> Speaking purely in terms of feasibility, is there a way contract.ss
> could be written so it switched definitions based on, say, a flag to
> mzc or mzscheme or an environment variable?
> -- Dave
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.