On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > The way I understand the word "ought" comes with a moral connotation. > In this sense, I am saying > > (1) require should not exist in TR > > (2) require: should exist for importing from typed modules > > (3) require-typed should exist for importing from untyped modules. > > Why? The idea of explicit specifications is sound/safe *documentation*. > I consider this aspect particularly important at the boundary between > typed and untyped code. > > What do we lose if we go this route? As far as I can tell, we lose > the ability to import macros from untyped modules. I consider this > *good* because macros cause problems with error messages. So what > we need is a way to require-typed macros (and I have an idea on that). > > [[ I honestly didn't know that we could import stuff from untyped > modules and hope that require could figure out that it types. It > doesn't even work for > (module a racket/base (define x 5) (provide x)) > so I am not sure what we could get to work. ]]
You can't. You can require stuff from *typed* modules. --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
