In what sense did you screw up? Even in ML all you get is a warning that your cases aren't exhaustive -- and so you get a run-time exception. So what? Run-time exceptions are a part of the standard type soundness theorem. -- Matthias
On May 25, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Danny Yoo wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: >> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:27 PM, John Clements >> <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: >>> Is there a "best-practice" model for type-case-like things in typed racket >>> yet? Obvious choices: >>> >>> - tagged-list style, it's all a big cond but I have to use first, second, >>> etc to refer to fields >>> - struct-union style, feels better but I don't get to use match (IIUC). >> >> `match' and unions of structs should work fine together in Typed Racket. > > > But doesn't racket/match interfere with catching bugs with forgetting > a case? When I do something like this: > > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > #lang typed/racket/base > (require racket/match) > > (define-type MyType (U SomeStruct1 > SomeStruct2)) > (define-struct: SomeStruct1 ()) > (define-struct: SomeStruct2 ()) > > (: stringify (MyType -> String)) > (define (stringify x) > (match x > [(struct SomeStruct1 ()) > "SomeStruct1"])) > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > > Typed Racket doesn't tell me statically that I've screwed up here. > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
