[racket-dev] exact nonnegative integers as sequences?

9 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Thanks for the clarifications, and I now agree that it's not about
> genericity.
> 
> I think it's about scripts to programs, though. In a script, not
> having to type `(in-range ....)' or `(in-list ....)' feels
> worthwhile. You make a good point that those scriptish shortcuts can
> make understanding the code a little harder, and using `in-range' or
> `in-list' can good for long-term maintenance. Still, I think it's
> better to allow the shortcuts.

Is there any difference between this and other generic operations
(which could also benefit from types being more explicit and more
checked)?

[Not intended as a flame -- I'm curious to see if there's something
makes some generics be worse than others.]

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!