On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Typed Racket isn't Racket. It's supposed to introduce some sanity.
I want programming in Typed Racket to be a Racket-like experience, more than I want Typed Racket to conform to some other set of aesthetic preferences (even mine). > Is (All (All) (All -> All)) a type? No, that doesn't parse, so there's clearly an inconsistency here. I will have to think about the best way to resolve it. > On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Matthias Felleisen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >>> >>>> 1. You added `All' in the type parameter list for `struct:'. You >>>> don't need that there, and instead it was adding a third type >>>> parameter to `Cvt'. >>> >>> Perhaps All shouldn't be allowed there. >> >> I thought of that as well, but we don't normally restrict binding >> names in Racket. For example, this is a perfectly good replacement >> for `list': >> >> (lambda lambda lambda) >> >> :) >> -- >> sam th >> [email protected] > -- sam th [email protected] ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
