At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:36:06 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: > > > To reiterate after my absence: I won't write a typed math/vector > > until using its exports in Typed Racket wouldn't be a huge friggin' > > PITA. > > Let me rephrase this ever so gently. Typed Racket has failed at least > one real test for now, namely, writing a highly usable math library.
Agreed. The invariance of vectors is a pretty big usability problem here. > I think this is a fair judgment, and you are posing the obvious, not so > implied problem to the TR maintainers to fix this problem. They should > thank you on their knees, especially Vincent. Yes, Sam and I should fix this. Neil: I'll study your proposal in detail, and see how we could add it (or something similar) to TR. Thanks for taking the time to write it out. I'll have a look at what Scala does, too. AFAIK, they also have invariant vectors and more than one numeric type, so they probably have similar problems. > > To offer a carrot instead of a stick: There could be a short paper > > in this, titled "The Case for a Clean, Correct, Covariant Const". > > That is what I was thinking as I was reading your message. I have not > encountered such a proposal/language before, and I think it could be a > really neat extension of Vincent's PADL work. Agreed. > Perhaps the two of you > should work out the details together and submit follow-up to PADL > n+1. Oh never mind, D stands for declarative. So ship it to ICFP next > year, functional languages do include mutation. Sounds good to me. Neil: let's continue this discussion off-list. Vincent _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
