Re: [racket-users] Contract on a parameter’s value as a function precondition?

That sounds promising, yes. Not being familiar with the guts of
parameters, is there any way to implement this as a derived concept
using the existing support in chaperone-procedure? As far as I can
tell, parameters do not expose the continuation marks they use, and
they also create thread cells, which I’m not sure that
chaperone-procedure’s existing API would support. Would this require
modification of procedure chaperones to support parameters directly,
or is there some way to implement it separately?

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Scott Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Yes, we worked with Matthew to implement the necessary hooks in procedure chaperones (see the 'mark options that were added to the return value of wrapper-proc). For the contracts we were writing, we ended up using these continuation marks directly.
> 
> To implement what you're looking for, a little extra work is required to link up the implementation of parameters with this mechanism to get at the appropriate continuation marks. One question there will be whether to integrate it with either the existing 
> arrow contracts (carefully protecting access to the internals of the parameter implementation), or to just provide a standalone combinator. I would need to refresh my memory to see what exactly would need to be done for either.
> 
> Cheers,
> Scott

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.