[plt-scheme] Penalties of ->r over -> ?

Which reminds me of another Charlotte, SC discussion:

introduce a generic contract signature form for functions
(and methods) and compile to the ->'s as needed.

-- Matthias



On Mar 5, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Robby Findler wrote:

> It is more expensive. The function wrapper is more complex, mostly
> because the range contract can depend on the argument values.
>
> Robby
>
> On 3/3/07, Richard Cobbe <cobbe at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> If I understand the contract docs correctly, ->r is at least as  
>> expressive
>> as -> .
>>
>> My question: is there any penalty (performance or otherwise)  
>> associated
>> with using ->r where -> would suffice?
>>
>> (Rationale: the additional names are useful for documentation  
>> purposes.)
>>
>> Richard
>> _________________________________________________
>>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>>
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme