On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > >> I worry that this is a hazard for existing code. For example, this >> plain Racket code: >> [snip] > > I imagined that there would be some time between introducing `flonum?' > and enabling 32-bit floats. During that in-between time, both `flonum?' > and `inexact-real?' would be ok in practice, but code should migrate to > `flonum?'.
Ah, that makes sense. >> Similarly (but less bad), this Typed Racket code: >> [snip] >> which currently typechecks would now be a type error. > > I didn't really consider the transition for Typed Racket. Would a grace > period similar to the dynamic case be possible and worthwhile (where > `inexact-real?' is treated like `flonum?' for a while longer, but > `flonum?' also becomes available)? Yes, that would well for Typed Racket. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
