On Friday, April 8, 2011, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> I think I'm not in favor of the move of parametric/c into the contract >> library. Sam and I had a discussion about this is Austin, tho, so >> maybe I'm misremembering the outcome? > > One of us is definitely misremembering the outcome -- my memory was > that we decided that `parametric/c' was important and belonged > alongside `new-exists/c'.
I thought I had convinced you that my "special casing the ->" way of looking at the world was sensible and that we didn't really have a good answer for what the Right Thing was. I would be happy if this one were renamed to not take this general sounding name. Something like parametric->/c or something (perhaps even with a corresponding restriction that the thing inside be a fn, if that check isn't already there). Is that ok? Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
