[racket-dev] Class contracts: opaque or transparent?

On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:

>  * Composability: opaque class contracts are not composable since each
>    one requires the entire specification. This shouldn't be a problem
>    since the individual class/c clauses can be composed/reused (e.g., ->m
>    contracts).


[[If you mentioned this issue in my office yesterday, I failed to catch it.]]

In the old world, I could write contracts such as 

 (and/c (class/cc ...) (class/c ...))

and that was *really convenient*. Are you saying I can
no longer do so? 

-- Matthias