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.
