Unfortunately those options wouldn't help because I ran across this issue where an extension to Typed Racket I was working with was using splicing-syntax-parameterize "under the hood" to provide some interesting extensions. I would prefer it if those extensions didn't prohibit use of : within them for type annotations.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alexander D. Knauth <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Jack Firth <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m having an issue where splicing-syntax-parameterize removes type > annotations in Typed Racket. I posted a question > <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27302460/splicing-syntax-parameterize-disables-typed-racket-type-annotations> > about it to Stack Overflow, and any assistance would be welcomed greatly. > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > I would hazard a guess it's because the splicing-syntax-parameterize is > basing its behavior on the untyped begin form instead of the begin form > from Typed Racket, and thus knows absolutely nothing about the : form. If > that's the case, how can I work around this? > > > I don’t know why this is happening, but I don’t think it’s an issue with > using an untyped begin versus a typed begin, because using for instance > splicing-local or splicing-let gives the expected type error. > > As for a workaround, would something like this work for you? > #lang typed/racket > (require racket/stxparam > racket/splicing) > (define-syntax-parameter x #f) > (splicing-syntax-parameterize ([x #'foo]) > (define #{n : Number} "string”)) > > Or this? > #lang typed/racket > (require racket/stxparam > racket/splicing) > (define-syntax-parameter x #f) > (: n Number) > (splicing-syntax-parameterize ([x #'foo]) > (define n "string”)) > > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
