On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Alexis King lexi.lam...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the typechecker can’t make any assumptions about the results of opaque
types. If you explicitly instantiate a Posn with the type Real, the
typechecker should only guarantee the result will be Real. Annotate the type
No, it doesn’t need to be wrapped in an opaque structure. Wrapping it in an
opaque structure would add a layer of indirection for absolutely no gain.
Remember, the value itself is already, by definition, opaque. The only way
typed code can manipulate the value is by passing it to other
On Jan 30, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Alexis King lexi.lam...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it doesn’t need to be wrapped in an opaque structure. Wrapping it in an
opaque structure would add a layer of indirection for absolutely no gain.
Remember, the value itself is already, by definition, opaque. The only
This change seemed to change the format of .dep files, likely as intended
to add the indirect dependencies. Is there any documentation of what the
format is supposed to be? Currently I've just been trying to read cm.rkt
and understand how it treats them.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:31 AM,
Thanks for your time.
On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 12:55 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Would the simpler `once-evt` work in your situation, or do you need the
guarantee that only one wait of E happens at a time?
OK, my original goal is to implement a remote method call multiplexer.
The kind where you
5 matches
Mail list logo
