[racket] Contracts and submodules

You can have mutually recursive functions with define/contract, but you 
can't with submodules.

Ryan

On 11/30/2012 05:04 PM, Ray Racine wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
> ____________________
>    Racket Users list:
>    http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>