Would it be enough to expand into an 'ann' expression? Or do you need to make decisions at compile time based on whether or not the types worked?
Robby On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, TR expands first, then checks. -- Matthias > > > > > On Jun 14, 2014, at 2:59 PM, Spencer Florence wrote: > >> Hey All, >> >> I'm trying to take advantage of typed/racket in a few macros. Is there any >> way to check the type of an expression from its syntax object? something >> like: >> >> (:has-type? (-> Void) #'expression) >> >> >> --Spencer >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
