You could change the ellipsis to Integer. :) Robby
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 20 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > > > On Mar 31, 2013, at 9:32 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > > > > My expectation when using typed/racket/no-check is that I won't > > > get any type errors. > > > > To me, the words "no check" mean just that: do not type-check the > > module. But I think it is okay to parse the types. I doubt people > > use this option when they wish to avoid a parse error in the type > > expressions. > > As a semi-random data point, I sometime use my no-check language > (which is built on top of TR's) to show how things work in class > without getting all the types right (or when there's some problem with > the types). In these cases I sometime use bogus type declarations > like "(All (A B) ...)", which IIUC wouldn't work anymore. It's just > technically simpler and clearer to still use `:' instead of going back > to comments. (But it's obviously a weak point.) > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev