On 2/17/20, Bertrand Augereau <bertrand.auger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello and thank you Ben for the explanation,
>
> I had already implemented the workaround, I'll keep it :)
> It seems that wrapping every binding access in a function is seen as
> unnecessary in Scheme and Common Lisp ("Reference needed" :) ) but
> it's a tool I use a lot in my favorite statically typed languages
> usually so I'll keep at it because it just eases refactoring... for
> instance in this case :)
> Maybe the documentation should warn about this ?
> Cheers,
> BertrandYes, a note in the docs would be good. Another idea:* TR could fix the issue by protecting set!'d identifiers lazily. Instead of applying a contract in the typed module, export a macro that applies the contract at each untyped use-site. * Thanks to Alex Knauth -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFUu9R7f3tRawUp76L9qa%3DEUWL_FNjgysCaJ%3D%3Df%3DS8rAJ41ZXA%40mail.gmail.com.
