On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:23:03 -0400
Jon Zeppieri wrote:


>> Does that mean that for higher-order function parameters, inst expects
>> only the return type signature, not that of the function itself?
> The main point here is that `inst` needs substitutions for the type
> _variables_, not for the types of the function arguments.

Oh, _now_ it makes sense! I see now that I really misunderstood even the
example in the reference entry for `inst`: I took "(inst cons Integer
Integer)" to mean "two Integer args" (which of course would only account
for the (Pairof a b) case and doesn't make sense in the context) instead
of "two Integer type variables".

Thank you for the detailed explanation!


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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to