On 4/1/13 11:16 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
You could change the ellipsis to Integer. :)
Or no-check could bind ellipsis to some type. This would be useful for sketching types out in no-check and then refining them to actual types in TR.
Robby On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org <mailto: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
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev