My understanding is that -- Neil created a single file P, I believe it is typed -- he tells you to load plot/typed/ for the typed version -- he tells you to load plot/ for the untyped version
Somewhere in this arrangement a call in some untyped client to a function f from P will cross a line. If this is wrong, I'd like to know where it goes wrong. --------------------------------------------- I like the submodule idea a lot. On Dec 17, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > I don't understand Matthias's performance comments. If, in TR (require plot) > actually gives me a typed version of the library and in R (require plot) > gives me the untyped version of the library, then I am avoiding the > performance the untyped/typed performance overhead properly. If, on the other > hand, if I have to commit that (require plot) gives me either the untyped or > the typed version, then I have to suffer the performance overhead when I > require it from the "wrong" context. > > Neil's original complaint also has validity, I think: if he provides a > plot/typed today, and then later ports plot so it is typed, then he has to > keep this extra thing around for what appears to not be a very good reason. > > And while I do understand Sam's reluctance to mess with module resolution, I > think that just not solving this problem is worse. > > And finally (and perhaps this is the root of the problem), I cannot > understand what TR actually does by reading its documentation. > > For example, the docs for 'require' do not explain why I can make a copy of > "list.rkt" (in the racket collection), call the copy "listt.rkt" and have > that copy not work, but the original one does. Clearly TR is not just > "get[ting] *exactly* the same file as in R", so I think Sam's comments are > off base. > > Robby > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: > > > > 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
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
