plt/racket — pull request #112 by shekari (2012-06-18 02:50:47+00:00)
Title: Contracts on Identifier tables

This change is still lacking, just sending a pull request to get comments.

Should it be allowed to have a contract on the key portion of the identifier table? I do not see why anyone would want to but because of ordering it would be impossible to make a backwards compatible change consistent with hash/c.

Also contract error messages using this contract reveal too much information about the implementation, is there a way to avoid this?

Is this the best way to add this sort of contract or should the contracts of the dictionary methods be changed?