On Oct 8, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: > On 10/08/2011 10:12 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> >> (1) I do not understand Neil's problem. Say I have module A and >> want to protect its exports from abuses by clients, say module B, >> why do you use define/contract at all? The define/contract form >> is for splitting modules into module-lets -- in case your module >> is too large and you can't manage invariants in your head. > > Which now I see that you can *infer* from the docs, if you already sort of > know this. They're kinda jagony. But now I understand, so thank you. > > The thing is, define/contract has a huge advantage that contract-out doesn't > have: it puts all the invariants at the function definition, right before the > code that relies on them. I suppose I could get the same effect with a > contract-out right before the function definition (or write a define/provide > macro). But I think the style guidelines say this is bad, and I don't like > scattering provides throughout code.
The docs seem to need a guide, a revision of the FAQ that I started with Robby a long time ago. Perhaps I can find time next semester. > >> If you >> believe that this is true for even small modules, I urge you to >> use Typed Racket. That's the better solution and real soon now >> TR will allow you to add contracts on top of types at provides. > > I would love to, if not for all the keyword arguments. :( That is seriously > the only thing keeping me from making PLoT into a typed library. Aha. Sam will be working on this :-) _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
