On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> I'm saying that I don't at the moment know how to avoid giving this
> error, given the current behavior of `set/c`.

> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Robby Findler
> <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> Are you saying it is reasonable that a typed racket program should
>> produce contract constructor errors like that?

>> Robby

>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>> The problem here is that `Any` is a special contract which isn't a
>>> "chaperone contract", and `set/c` requires chaperone contracts.

>>> It's not obvious to me if this can be detected statically, but you can
>>> work around this by changing `Any` to some other type.

>>> Sam

>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones <to...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,

>>>> What could I be doing wrong here?

>>>>     #lang typed/racket
>>>>     (provide (struct-out foo))
>>>>     (struct: foo ([bar : (Setof Any)]))

>>>> Racket 5.3.0.24 complains about it ("racket problem.rkt"):

>>>>     set/c: contract violation
>>>>       expected: chaperone-contract?
>>>>       given: #<make-contract>
>>>>       context...:
>>>>        /Users/tonyg/src/racket-typed-matrix/problem.rkt: [running body]

>>>> The complaint vanishes if I comment out the provide, remove the bar
>>>> field, or change the bar field's type to Any/Integer/etc.

>>>>   Tony
>>>> ____________________
>>>>   Racket Users list:
>>>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

>>> --
>>> sam th
>>> sa...@ccs.neu.edu
>>> ____________________
>>>   Racket Users list:
>>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

> --
> sam th
> sa...@ccs.neu.edu