On 07/25/2012 07:10 PM, D Herring wrote:
On 07/25/2012 12:29 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
What if TR had a notion of const-ness, like in C? Suppose (Vectorof A)
is a subtype of (Const-Vectorof B) when A is a subtype of B, and
(Const-Vectorof A) is never a subtype of (Vectorof B).
In C, const is a
On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
To reiterate after my absence: I won't write a typed math/vector until using
its exports in Typed Racket wouldn't be a huge friggin' PITA.
Let me rephrase this ever so gently. Typed Racket has failed at least one real
test for now, namely,
At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:36:06 -0400,
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
To reiterate after my absence: I won't write a typed math/vector
until using its exports in Typed Racket wouldn't be a huge friggin'
PITA.
Let me rephrase this ever so
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
After thinking about it, I don't want an Immutable-Vector type, for which v
: Immutable-Vector proves (immutable? v) is #t. That would be seriously
annoying to users of a vector library.
What if TR had a notion of
On 07/25/2012 10:26 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
After thinking about it, I don't want an Immutable-Vector type, for which v
: Immutable-Vector proves (immutable? v) is #t. That would be seriously
annoying to users of
On 07/25/2012 12:29 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
What if TR had a notion of const-ness, like in C? Suppose (Vectorof A)
is a subtype of (Const-Vectorof B) when A is a subtype of B, and
(Const-Vectorof A) is never a subtype of (Vectorof B).
In C, const is a contract on the function type, not on the
6 matches
Mail list logo
