On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Neil Toronto <neil.toro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Some typed "for" loops would have to be reimplemented, unless inference > improves a lot. To make this easier, I've attached an example implementation > of `for/vector:' and `for*/vector:'. It allows both body and result > annotations, handles #:length properly, allows #:when clauses anywhere, and > fixes the two bugs in `for/vector' I reported today.
Thanks for doing this. I worry a little about re-implementing `for/vector`, since now we have two implementations to keep in sync. Eventually, I think Typed Racket needs to support more agressive inference than it currently does; that's the reality of dealing with a macro-generated language. But for the moment, this would make things better for people. Two questions: (1) how similar is the generated code to the expansion of plain `for/vector`, and (2) would it be possible to abstract the implementation of Racket's `for/vector` to allow you to re-use some of that code here? -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
