I'm not sure what the qualitative distinction is between contracts and Typed 
Racket. They seem like two syntaxes for what mostly amount to the same thing. 
Is it just a matter of implementation, or perhaps what their developers focus 
on? You could in theory read through a list of contracts, and of the contracts 
that guarantee the operation you want on the data you have, pick the most 
efficient one. And that's what Typed Racket does for the most part, I thought.

Is it just that the algorithm for doing that with contracts hasn't been 
written, so Typed Racket can't take advantage of it? Is it that contracts are 
more general, not always necessarily contracts of functions that operate on 
types? /Does/ Typed Racket actually have significant overhead, when compiling 
perhaps? If not, would that overhead they mentioned about contracts be 
eliminated if those contracts were only utilized to decide what function to 
use, and not checked every time that function is called?

Just something that was puzzling me in the documentation.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to