On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> Yes, Matthias and I discussed this in the context of Typed Racket vs
> Typed JavaScript some months ago. TJS doesn't have to worry about
> this because of the single-threaded nature of the language. It seems
> to me this is a non-t
Yes, Matthias and I discussed this in the context of Typed Racket vs
Typed JavaScript some months ago. TJS doesn't have to worry about
this because of the single-threaded nature of the language. It seems
to me this is a non-trivial problem for TR.
Shriram
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> we couldn't type the generator code (a bad interaction between mutation
> and occurrence typing).
In almost all cases, when TR rejects your program because of this,
your code is incorrect in the presence of threads and/or futures (a
That was not at all what Matthias was talking about. My response was
to understand his comment.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> #lang typed/racket/no-check
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
> wrote:
>> If I want to move (define: (foo ([a : ...])
#lang typed/racket/no-check
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> If I want to move (define: (foo ([a : ...])) ...) into untyped code, I
> have to touch the source -- the code simply isn't valid syntax.
> _
> For list-rel
If I want to move (define: (foo ([a : ...])) ...) into untyped code, I
have to touch the source -- the code simply isn't valid syntax.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
On Aug 17, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
>> Why did you even have to rewrite it?
>
> 1. I didn't have access to their code.
>
> 2. We'd have had to take out the :'s, anyway.
Can't you just re-export the procedures at a specific type? -- Matthias
_
> Why did you even have to rewrite it?
1. I didn't have access to their code.
2. We'd have had to take out the :'s, anyway.
> 'Everyone' (for some value of 'every') understands that this is how
> it works for the Y combinator.
Good point.
Shriram
___
On Aug 17, 2010, at 9:21 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> As some of you know, we're building a semantics for Python in Racket.
> At my instigation, my students are doing everything in Typed Racket.
> However, when we got to generators, we ran up against a problem: we
> couldn't type the genera
As some of you know, we're building a semantics for Python in Racket.
At my instigation, my students are doing everything in Typed Racket.
However, when we got to generators, we ran up against a problem: we
couldn't type the generator code (a bad interaction between mutation
and occurrence typing).
10 matches
Mail list logo
