Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27395: master branch updated

2013-08-30 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Eric Dobson wrote: > As it stands the Set type constructor is for hash sets. Changing that > would break backwards compatibility and pr13989 is for the issue of > changing the meaning/any change. > > I think there is a bunch of existing code that assumes that Set i

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27395: master branch updated

2013-08-30 Thread Vincent St-Amour
I'll fix `generic-set?''s type to work with `Set's as hash sets. Vincent At Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:40:18 -0700, Eric Dobson wrote: > > As it stands the Set type constructor is for hash sets. Changing that > would break backwards compatibility and pr13989 is for the issue of > changing the meaning/

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27395: master branch updated

2013-08-30 Thread Eric Dobson
As it stands the Set type constructor is for hash sets. Changing that would break backwards compatibility and pr13989 is for the issue of changing the meaning/any change. I think there is a bunch of existing code that assumes that Set is exactly hashsets, or at least covariant. On Fri, Aug 30, 20

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27395: master branch updated

2013-08-30 Thread Vincent St-Amour
I was thinking of the `Set' type constructor as meaning generic set, which is why I gave that type to `generic-set?'. This interpretation is a problem because TR treats sets as covariant. If we make sets invariant, could TR support generic sets? [1] Or are there other issues I'm missing? Vincent

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27395: master branch updated

2013-08-30 Thread Eric Dobson
Isn't the assymetric check the wrong way? If it returns true, we know nothing because it might not be a hash-set, but if it returns false then we know that it is not a hash set? On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote: > On 2013-08-30 16:15:23 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> I

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27395: master branch updated

2013-08-30 Thread Asumu Takikawa
On 2013-08-30 16:15:23 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I worry about mutable sets here, but I can't think of any bugs it can > cause ATM. I don't have any segfault-causing bugs, but here's a violation of the blame theorem: #lang racket (module a0 racket (define s (mutable-set 1 2 3))

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #27395: master branch updated

2013-08-30 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:55 PM, wrote: > > +[generic-set? (asym-pred Univ B (-FS (-filter (-set Univ) 0) -top))] I worry about mutable sets here, but I can't think of any bugs it can cause ATM. _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev