[racket-dev] syntax/syntax proposal

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Thu Jun 21 11:53:38 EDT 2012

A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > I don't see how that would help -- you'll still get the same errors.
> Ouch. That's again a misunderstanding of contracts.
> The idea is that contracts specify in interfaces what is expected,
> not deep inside some code.

I'm not talking about having contracts -- just about this part:

> [...] make a racket/pre-contracts subcollection and just stuff all
> of racket/contract/base's dependencies in there, then say everything
> else is allowed (maybe even expected) to use contracts.

You can already know that, for example, `syntax/stx' is part of that
because you'll get a cyclic module dependency error if you try to add
contracts to it.  (And that error would be the same whether it's
listed in a new `racket/pre-contracts' module.)

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

Posted on the dev mailing list.