On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > The expansion of submodules is intended to have a fresh store, just > like the expansion of any module. The `#f' initial import is intended > to be something like using `(submod "..")' as the initial language, > except importing all internal bindings of the module instead of its > exports. > > Can Typed Racket not handle enclosing bindings in the same way that it > handles `require's in general?
Currently, it can. However, I wanted to make a fairly small change to only update the type environment when needed, and it broke because of this. In the context of my example, the `(m)` invocation is expanded *before* the inner `#%module-begin` expansion happens, meaning that it hits the error case, even though it's expanded inside a module with the appropriate `#%module-begin` binding. With submodules as they currently work, the inner `#%module-begin` is expanded quite late, which I think breaks other possible expectations about #%module-begin as well. Moving it earlier will, I think, alleviate all of these issues. > > At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:05:21 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> It appears that the expansion of (module* m #f ...) occurs in a fresh >> store, but before running the inner module's `#%module-begin` binding. >> To see this, run the program at https://gist.github.com/2991214 , and >> note that ">> in module-begin" is printed only once, but the expansion >> of `m` fails, indicating a fresh store. >> >> This is troublesome for Typed Racket, which uses the store to record >> the types of identifiers. Is this the intended behavior? >> -- >> sam th >> sa...@ccs.neu.edu -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
