2011/9/21 Thorsten Wilms <t...@freenet.de> > On 09/21/2011 01:51 AM, Laurent PETIT wrote: > >> I would see no problem of e.g. having a way to explicitly declare, in >> the "public interface of the function" (as opposed to "derived >> implicitly from the current implementation detail of the function") the >> necessary constraints on the function arguments. And the guarantees on >> the function's result. >> >> Those could then allow more checks at compile time, without sacrificing >> genericity of the code. >> > > Something like Racket's contracts, perhaps? > http://pre.racket-lang.org/**docs/html/guide/contracts.html<http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/guide/contracts.html> >
Contracts are indeed a generalization of constraints on type properties > > > -- > Thorsten Wilms > > thorwil's design for free software: > http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/**group/clojure?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
