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 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).
How exactly are these different? An immutable vector is a vector, but could be covariant, which seems like what you want. However, a mutable vector can't be treated as an immutable vector. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
