[plt-scheme] Contracts on Libraries

That code doesn't work for all possible uses of contracts. It is there
to help me do performance debugging of the contract library.

As with everything, this is a question of priorities. I do see some
demand, but there are enough other things that I think are more
important at the moment that I won't be able to get to it soon.

Sorry,
Robby

On 6/8/07, Dave Gurnell <d.j.gurnell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> efficiency
> >> shouldn't be too bad.  Scheme already has safety checks on many
> >> operations; as far as I'm concerned adding new checks to new
> >> operations is just standard overhead.
> >>
> >> If you have a really speed-sensitive library, you could always expose
> >> both the contracted and uncontracted modules and let users choose.
> >
> > Which is pretty much the same thing as having contracts you can turn
> > on and off =).
> >
> > I see demand.
>
> I use contracts like I used to use assertions in C and Java, so I'm
> kind of in favour of allowing them to be en/disabled. I see there is
> code in contract.ss that can be uncommented to disable contracts.
> Speaking purely in terms of feasibility, is there a way contract.ss
> could be written so it switched definitions based on, say, a flag to
> mzc or mzscheme or an environment variable?
>
> -- Dave
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>