Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Neil Toronto <neil.toro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why aren't typed macros allowed to be used in untyped code? Don't the
annotation forms like (: ...) expand to no-ops?
This is an important limitation - the typed macros have access to the
unprotected versions of the typed identifiers from the module, so they
can't be allowed to escape. There are plans to evolve the certificate
system so that we can lift this restriction, but that's future
research.
Ahh! There is a reason for the madness! I'm still miffed, but I like
this kind of miffing. Miffingness. Miffilocity.
But Typed Racket craps on me if I use the typed macros inside a sandbox in
Scribble. For example, using @(example #:eval my-eval (bftest-error (bfexp
(bf 2)))) gives me this:
(bftest-error (bfexp (bf 2)))
eval:63:0: Type Checker: Macro bftest-error from typed
module used in untyped code in: (bftest-error (bfexp (bf
2)))
Gah! I thought I got around this! How do I convince Typed Racket or the
sandbox that I'm not up to anything funny?
Require `#%top-interaction' from typed racket, or in general create
your sandbox from Typed Racket.
Excellent, a workaround. Requiring #%top-interaction sounds hacky, so
I'll do the other one. It'll be nice to have my examples type-checked
anyway.
Neil T
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
