We now have Chicken Scheme type declarations, thanks to the work
by Jörg F. Wittenberger.  Chicken Scheme type declarations are defined here:

Racket also includes type declaration language:
Naturally, Racket's system is very similar but
syntactically incompatible, continuing the usual
Scheme hostility towards portability :-(.
For such a beautiful language, ugly Scheme code
is sure a common result :-(.

Maybe we should use a term other than ":" and let macro systems
define them into the local type system.  That assumes that
type systems like Chicken and Racket accept the results of macros.
But *can* we use macros to generate "(: ...)" type declarations?
Should we?

--- David A. Wheeler

Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing 
conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now. 
Readable-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to