Well, you wouldn't. Are the implementations of the contracts proven to be equivalent currently? Or do you just have a theorem that matches up the ones in some model somewhere?
Robby On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > How would you check soundness between a type and its contract? > > Types, like theorem provers, are addictive. The more expressivity > they provide, the more programmers want to play with them. > > Use Real -> Real and you'll be fine. -- Matthias > > > > On Jun 26, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> In this case, the contract could turn into a dependent one with the >> same semantics. Does it make sense for TR to allow a user to declare >> the equivalent contract? >> >> Robby >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Neil Toronto <neil.toro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Ten minutes in, I've hit a snag. I'd like the stuff in math/functions to >>> have precise types. For example, log1p could have the type >>> >>> (case-> (Zero -> Zero) >>> (Float -> Float) >>> (Real -> Real)) >>> >>> It was easy to get the implementation to typecheck, but when I tried to plot >>> it in untyped Racket, I got this: >>> >>> Type Checker: The type of log1p cannot be converted to a contract in: log1p >>> >>> I really don't want to have two versions of the library. Could TR use the >>> most general type (Real -> Real) as the contract? Or would that be unsound? >>> >>> Neil ⊥ >>> _________________________ >>> Racket Developers list: >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >> >> _________________________ >> Racket Developers list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
