On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > So far as I understand it, we have: Stevie opposed, Matthias neutral, > Robby and Casey for, with everyone agreeing that we should try to > preserve the "Carl constraints" of 'single contract wrapper' and 'same > identifier-ness'. > > Note that in the current world we are *forced* to break the first of > the Carl constraints. So I consider this a bonus if we achieve it (and > so if we don't in some cases, I don't think we should care). > > Is that a correct summary of the status?
Given the performance impacts of rewrapping, it seems like solving that problem should be a prerequisite for changing the semantics of `provide' to automatically add non-trivial contracts. I think it would be pretty problematic to suddenly add repeated list traversals to any code that reprovides identifiers. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
