Re: [racket] Strange contracts in the tutorial

2011-06-21 Thread Jay McCarthy
I've updated the tutorial to say "doesn't return" rather than "doesn't" Jay 2011/6/13 Rodolfo Carvalho > Ok, now I get what it means. > > Still, it feels confusing in the way that it's written. > > []'s > > Rodolfo Carvalho > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 20:55, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> >

Re: [racket] Strange contracts in the tutorial

2011-06-13 Thread Rodolfo Carvalho
Ok, now I get what it means. Still, it feels confusing in the way that it's written. []'s Rodolfo Carvalho On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 20:55, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > The author tried to say it doesn't return. > > In a Racket-like context, the author could have specified > > ;; render-blog-

Re: [racket] Strange contracts in the tutorial

2011-06-13 Thread Matthias Felleisen
The author tried to say it doesn't return. In a Racket-like context, the author could have specified ;; render-blog-page : request -> ∅ Since there are no elements in the emptyset, this specification says the same thing mathematically, using Racket's `types as sets' standard form of loose

Re: [racket] Strange contracts in the tutorial

2011-06-13 Thread Nadeem Abdul Hamid
It means it "doesn't return". Note that the last thing the function does is call send/suspend/dispatch, which calls response-generator, and never "returns" back out of the original call to render-blog-page. --- nadeem On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Rodolfo Carvalho wrote: > > Hi, > I'm reading