Would there be a way to test the type for making decisions at run-time (not
just with predicates)?
For example:
(cond [(:has-type? f (Number -> Any))
(f 1)]
[(:has-type? f (String -> Any))
(f "1")])
On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That's what I thought you wanted it for so my answer stands -- Matthias
>
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:55 AM, Spencer Florence wrote:
>
>> This is about making decisions at compile time. Specifically I have a
>> sequence of expressions I want to partition into expressions of some type T
>> and expressions of other types.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Robby Findler <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> 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
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
