[racket-dev] Disjoint unions (from PR 13131)

2012-09-22 Thread Eli Barzilay
[This is unrelated to the PR, so redirected here.] Yesterday, Vincent St-Amour wrote: Types like `Positive-Integer-Not-Fixnum' are used internally as building blocks for numeric types, but are not exported. IMO, these types wouldn't be very useful to users because - They're not used

Re: [racket-dev] Disjoint unions (from PR 13131)

2012-09-22 Thread Matthias Felleisen
I consider this problem distinct from Vincent's. I'd argue that the separate this/that constructors exist in your mind only. On Sep 22, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: [This is unrelated to the PR, so redirected here.] Yesterday, Vincent St-Amour wrote: Types like

Re: [racket-dev] Disjoint unions (from PR 13131)

2012-09-22 Thread Eli Barzilay
A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: I consider this problem distinct from Vincent's. Yes, the problem is separate (hence moving the discussion) -- it's the feature that he mentioned (being able to hide types) that I was referring to. I'd argue that the separate this/that

Re: [racket-dev] Disjoint unions (from PR 13131)

2012-09-22 Thread Matthias Felleisen
On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: I consider this problem distinct from Vincent's. Yes, the problem is separate (hence moving the discussion) -- it's the feature that he mentioned (being able to hide types) that I was

Re: [racket-dev] Disjoint unions (from PR 13131)

2012-09-22 Thread Eli Barzilay
Just now, Matthias Felleisen wrote: On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: I'm not following that... If you're saying that the two constructors are not separate, then I'm more than agreeing -- I'm saying that this is the main feature of the whole thing: the fact that you

Re: [racket-dev] Disjoint unions (from PR 13131)

2012-09-22 Thread Vincent St-Amour
At Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:52:49 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: A few minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: I consider this problem distinct from Vincent's. Yes, the problem is separate (hence moving the discussion) -- it's the feature that he mentioned (being able to hide types) that I was

Re: [racket-dev] Disjoint unions (from PR 13131)

2012-09-22 Thread Eli Barzilay
20 minutes ago, Vincent St-Amour wrote: At Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:52:49 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: (This 1) - : SOMETHING --- the type is not `This' (This 1) This is not what I'm describing. If `(This 1)' is used as type `SOMETHING', the TR printer will print the type as

Re: [racket-dev] Disjoint unions (from PR 13131)

2012-09-22 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote: What I'm suggesting is that some unions (e.g. `Natural') be opaque even to the introspection tool. Since there's no way to get something to typecheck as `Positive-Integer-Not-Fixnum' (the typechecker will never give that