On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:31 PM George Neuner <[email protected]> wrote:
> To me, TypedRacket feels much more like ML than like Dylan or Common > Lisp. Type inference is great - when it works. Coarse grained scope > encompassing declarations are great - when you can figure out what > they should be. Reducing busywork and the cognative load on the > programmer seems like it always should be a Good Thing. But when > inference fails and the declarations are unfathomable, and there is no > easy way around the problem save by falling back to SLOW untyped code, > then typing becomes a PITA. To my thinking, there needs to be some > middle ground - like CL's 'the' operator or Dylan's local annotations > - that can disambiguate problems on the spot. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here -- the CL type system works very differently -- but local annotation is certainly possible in Typed Racket. The `ann` form allows you to annotate any expression at all, ie `(ann 17 Integer)`. Sam -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK%3DHD%2BbzHvs%2BNOUf7z6Gb77DWE7NwkYTjQsVH5nCFxJCzj%2BKvw%40mail.gmail.com.
