Alexis King

Curious; it looks like those contracts are not enforced in the `#:defaults` block. The motivation for this in the first place was a desire to support `hash-ref`/`dict-ref`’s `failure-thunk` arguments, but...

Doing such a thing *requires* all implementations to support a failure thunk; my original intention was to make such support optional but allowed. Of course, this means you could not...

I don’t see any reason why that couldn’t be added. I’d accept a PR. It should likely have a fallback procedure defined in terms of `ref` and `set-ref`.

Yes, this is an issue I am aware of. It’s one I was originally disinclined to fix because my ulterior motive for this implementation was to implement this in Racket,...

> Are you planning to implement the follow up paper also (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~joshuad/papers/gadts/)? Sadly I am unable to find any implementations of it. Maybe eventually, but at the moment, probably not....

I don’t really like this very much, but the point you raise is reasonable. I don’t want to change `from-just!`, though, since the whole point of it having that `!`...

I agree with this idea in principle, but in practice, Racket streams seem to be relatively slow. I’ve been wanting to figure out how to create a more efficient streaming...

Yes, right now, parsing with megaparsack requires being able to hold the whole file in memory. This is *definitely* suboptimal, but to be fair, the parsec strategy for parsing often...

Bluntly, yes, there’s no reason for this not to exist. Feel free to open a PR to add it.

Yeah, this was semi-intentional at the time, but it was probably the wrong call. I don’t think it can be fixed now because the Racket package system provides no mechanism...