At Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:09:48 -0800, John Clements wrote: > > They should be. Which one was unbound? That sounds like a bug. > > Your commit message suggests that you figured this out already?
I did find something along the way. Is it the same you noticed? > >> 3) What would be *really* awesome would be a tool that accepted a > >> function and a desired output type, and pruned the type of the > >> function so that I could discover what kind of input I had to > >> provide in order to get that kind of output. I find myself > >> repeatedly plowing through enormous types trying to find a clause > >> that will do what I want. > > > > Would `:query-result-type' do what you want? > > Nice! I will say that trying to use it before reading the docs led to some > really unpleasant "Internal" error messages: > > > :query-result-type > Type Checker: Internal Typed Racket Error : #(struct:exn:fail > :query-result-type is only valid at the top-level of an interaction > #<continuation-mark-set>) in: here > > (:query-result-type log) > Type Checker: Internal Typed Racket Error : #(struct:exn:fail > :query-result-type is only valid at the top-level of an interaction > #<continuation-mark-set>) in: here > > (:query-result-type 14) > Type Checker: Internal Typed Racket Error : #(struct:exn:fail > :query-result-type is only valid at the top-level of an interaction > #<continuation-mark-set>) in: here Seems the errors are not propagated properly. I'll fix that. Vincent ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
