A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > > I don't see how that would help -- you'll still get the same errors. > > Ouch. That's again a misunderstanding of contracts. > > The idea is that contracts specify in interfaces what is expected, > not deep inside some code.
I'm not talking about having contracts -- just about this part: > [...] make a racket/pre-contracts subcollection and just stuff all > of racket/contract/base's dependencies in there, then say everything > else is allowed (maybe even expected) to use contracts. You can already know that, for example, `syntax/stx' is part of that because you'll get a cyclic module dependency error if you try to add contracts to it. (And that error would be the same whether it's listed in a new `racket/pre-contracts' module.) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev