On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > 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.
Yes, this is my recollection as well, so less misremembering than I thought. > 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? That sounds good to me. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
