On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Robby Findler <[email protected]> wrote: > Was it wrong before? Suboptimal somehow?
It was suboptimal in that more operations should be allowed now (such as accessing elements of a mutable vector provided under the type `Any`). However, some of the errors that this has caused in practice make me think that the previous implementation was wrong as well, since some of the programs that broke shouldn't have worked. > On Oct 28, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Ryan Culpepper <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> samth: >>> - type->contract fixes/changes (9e1cf579a4, 962f2472e1) >>> - add #:opaque and #:struct to require/typed (9054d0db7d) >> >> Typed Racket now handles higher-order values provided to untyped >> modules under the type `Any` differently. This may lead to dynamic >> errors in some mixed typed/untyped programs, which can be fixed by >> using more specific types. >> >> -- >> sam th >> [email protected] >> _________________________ >> Racket Developers list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev -- sam th [email protected] _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
