[racket] Contracts and submodules

I have added a note on this issue to the Style issue; see section 3.6. Strictly speaking, this prose probably belongs into the Contract guide. -- Matthias



On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:

> You can have mutually recursive functions with define/contract, but you can't with submodules.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> On 11/30/2012 05:04 PM, Ray Racine wrote:
>> Why not make this explicit by deprecating define/contract and support
>> this use case with a submodule.  They lightweight enough and makes
>> boundary demarcations consistent, explicit and simple.  Module -> boundary.
>> 
>> On Nov 30, 2012 12:05 PM, "Matthias Felleisen" <matthias at ccs.neu.edu
>> <mailto:matthias at ccs.neu.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>    On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>> 
>>     >> This is a complete misunderstanding.
>>     >
>>     > Sometimes I feel like a kid in the room while the adults are talking.
>>     > When it comes to contracts, I have to stipulate that most of you are
>>     > smarter than me and have thought about this longer than me.
>> 
>> 
>>    Apologies. My opening wasn't meant to say "I am smarter" but I wanted
>>    to send a strong message about define/contract. It really introduces a
>>    boundary and in some strange sense your (possibly misleading)
>>    microbenchmark
>>    exposes this constraint too.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    ____________________
>>       Racket Users list:
>>    http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________
>>   Racket Users list:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>> 
> 
> ____________________
> Racket Users list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users