On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > I've long thought something along these lines is a good idea, but perhaps > what I think is a good idea isn't what Matthias and Sam think is the bad > idea. > > I think that it makes sense for 'require' in typed-racket to look in a > different place than 'require' in untyped racket looks so that one can write > the same require spec (in both the docs and the code) and have two versions > of the same library, one that is typed and one that isn't typed. Then, then > library writer, if they choose, can decide who pays what for going (or not) > across the boundary between typed and untyped. (Or maybe submodules would be > better.)
I think this is exactly what Eli was suggesting, and what I think is a bad idea. > I think this is already happening in TR anyways, when I write > > (require racket/list) > > I don't get the same file being loaded when that is in a TR program as when > it is in a R program. You get *exactly* the same file as in R. I think that (a) this is a valuable invariant and (b) the mechanisms for violating this invariant are all very worrying. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
