> Others: Does define/match do anything that would make Typed Racket see it
> differently from define + match*? It seems like define/match expands to
> define + match*/derived anyway. The only thing that's different is which
> define it's expanding to. So is expanding to Racket's define instead of TR's
> causing the problem?

I think so. It seems like Typed Racket is ignoring the type annotation
and trying to infer a type for the function body.

Here's a github issue for this:

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to