That sounds promising, yes. Not being familiar with the guts of parameters, is there any way to implement this as a derived concept using the existing support in chaperone-procedure? As far as I can tell, parameters do not expose the continuation marks they use, and they also create thread cells, which I’m not sure that chaperone-procedure’s existing API would support. Would this require modification of procedure chaperones to support parameters directly, or is there some way to implement it separately?
> On Nov 23, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Scott Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, we worked with Matthew to implement the necessary hooks in procedure > chaperones (see the 'mark options that were added to the return value of > wrapper-proc). For the contracts we were writing, we ended up using these > continuation marks directly. > > To implement what you're looking for, a little extra work is required to link > up the implementation of parameters with this mechanism to get at the > appropriate continuation marks. One question there will be whether to > integrate it with either the existing > arrow contracts (carefully protecting access to the internals of the > parameter implementation), or to just provide a standalone combinator. I > would need to refresh my memory to see what exactly would need to be done for > either. > > Cheers, > Scott -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
