The subject sounds complainy, and so will the rest of this email. So I
will state up front that I love Typed Racket, and I'm only frustrated
because I want to love it more.
Also, I apologize for the length of this email, but I have to tell a
story. Otherwise, I'll get a bunch of "Why don't you
"First, though, I want to make the loop faster. It turns out that this:
[#{i : Nonnegative-Fixnum} 0]
is enough to turn `<' and `+' into `unsafe-fx<' and `unsafe-fx+', and I
still don't have to annotate `acc' or the loop's return value. Awesome.
Provide and commit."
Posted about this annoyance
At Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:27:50 -0700,
Neil Toronto wrote:
> 1. Allow submodules to extend the reader.
Would using `#lang typed/racket/no-check' instead of `#lang racket' for
the top-level module work? It extends the reader and provides TR's
annotated forms, but otherwise counts as an untyped langu
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
>
> 1. Allow submodules to extend the reader.
>
> This seems hard, because module forms are expanded after they've been read.
> One possibility is a #module reader macro. Seems like overkill.
This, at least, has an easy solution -- use the `#r
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> In general, we need a better story for scaling up programming with
> intersection types.
I agree with this.
>> There are two more general solutions to the first problem, that
>> single-arity `case->' types sometimes make annotating impos
5 matches
Mail list logo
