[plt-scheme] Contract Comments / Suggestions / Requests
On Oct 19, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Williams, M. Douglas wrote:
> I have a couple (of rather trivial) comments / suggestions / requests
> (however anyone wants to interpret them) for contracts. In general,
> these are nitpicks that I can (and do) implement on my own (except for
> #4). But I think they might useful enough to include in the contracts
> module – or at least it keeps me from including my own
> contracts-extension module.
>
> 1) There are places in the language that require exact integers (e.g.,
> pretty much anyplace an index into something is needed). How about
> exact counterparts to the contracts that match integers. For example,
> (exact-integer-in 1 10) or exact-natural-number?. [Also add
> exact-integer? as a counterpart to integer?.]
Wonderful idea. I have used this, too.
> 2) This is a total nitpick. I would have rather seen natural-number?
> named natural? (or natural-integer?). I think the –number appended
> makes it look to someone new to the language that it is higher in the
> numeric hierarchy than it really is. Plus, the exact-natural-number?
> in #1 is getting a bit long.
Robby is in the process of renaming these contracts. Great! Short is
good here.
> 3) At first I thought that in addition to natural-number? it would be
> nice to have something matching positive integers, etc. But I’ve
> gotten so used to writing (integer-in 1 +inf.0) that it seems natural
> (no pun intended). Indeed, maybe natural-number? is superfluous.
> Should we just encourage this format?
>
>
> 4) This one may not be so trivial. Is there any way to dynamically
> check a list that could potentially be used as a function call (or
> alternatively, a function and list of arguments to be applied) against
> a contract, prior to evaluation (or application) of the function? (I
> am thinking a super-extension of procedure-arity-includes? that one
> could use to check against a contract instead of just the arity of the
> procedure.)
Can you make an example? Sounds interesting.
Thanks -- Matthias
>
>
>
> Doug