Re: [plt-scheme] Design by Contract for Functions in DrScheme

[Robert Bruce Findler <robby@cs.rice.edu>]

At Sat, 4 May 2002 12:35:36 -0700, Michael Vanier wrote:
> This looks very cool.  The infixy notation doesn't look too schemish,
> though; can you use prefix notation as well e.g.
> 
>     (-> (-> greater-than-10? greater-than-100?) greater-than-100?)
> 
> ?  Of course, it's nice to have a choice ;-)

Yes, that's right, they are the same. The double-dot notation is a
reader shorthand for what you'ver written above.

> > Help Desk gives the detail for using contracts in DrScheme (including
> > other variants of the -> contract constructor and combinators for
> > building flat contracts). A submission to this year's ICFP (available
> > on request) gives a more id-depth overview than the above, plus more
> > technical details.
> > 
> 
> I would like to read this.

I probably should have advertised my dissertation rather than a
conference submission (sorry!) -- for the dissertation, please visit:

  http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/#diss

Robby