I am no longer sure but Neil's earlier message suggested "no" is the right
answer to this question in the sense that even if you make the contracts be
eq? by using a local variable then it isn't enough because the functions
with the contracts are not eq?.
Neil, can you clarify?
Robby
On Sunday,
On Dec 29, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
> That's what the patch I sent does I think (specifically in the case of an
> arrow contract on a function)? Am I missing something?
>
I think the contracts are repeated and not defined locally so that 'eq?'
doesn't apply. Does this expl
On Dec 29, 2012, at 10:09 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
>>TR proved that it is applied to Foo if anything. Is TR too
>>aggressive in negative positions?
>
> I'm almost certain it is. Sam? (Wherefore art thou, Sam?)
>
> I can see an argument for having overly aggressive contracts at first, bef
On Dec 30, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 29 Dec 2012 23:26:56 -0800, Danny Yoo wrote:
>> I'd like to add something like the following example to the third
>> paragraph of section 1.1.16 on the implications on custodian shutdown:
>>
>>https://gist.github.com/4411396
>>
>>
At Sat, 29 Dec 2012 23:26:56 -0800, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I'd like to add something like the following example to the third
> paragraph of section 1.1.16 on the implications on custodian shutdown:
>
> https://gist.github.com/4411396
>
>
> Otherwise, without the example, it's easy to misinterpre
5 matches
Mail list logo
