[racket] Contracts and submodules

Why not make this explicit by deprecating define/contract and support this
use case with a submodule.  They lightweight enough and makes boundary
demarcations consistent, explicit and simple.  Module -> boundary.
On Nov 30, 2012 12:05 PM, "Matthias Felleisen" <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:

>
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>
> >> This is a complete misunderstanding.
> >
> > Sometimes I feel like a kid in the room while the adults are talking.
> > When it comes to contracts, I have to stipulate that most of you are
> > smarter than me and have thought about this longer than me.
>
>
> Apologies. My opening wasn't meant to say "I am smarter" but I wanted
> to send a strong message about define/contract. It really introduces a
> boundary and in some strange sense your (possibly misleading)
> microbenchmark
> exposes this constraint too.
>
>
>
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20121130/0d9e314c/attachment.html>