This version blames the correct expression.
The error message itself is however in terms of the expanded
code and I see why that is a key problem.
/Jens Axel
for-sum.rkt
Description: Binary data
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
2013/1/5 Matthias Felleisen :
>
> On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>
>> Here is my attempt. The only problem, is that when type checking
>> fails, the set! expression is blamed instead of user code.
>
>
> That is the key problem.
I know which user expression it is, body-expr, I
On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> Here is my attempt. The only problem, is that when type checking
> fails, the set! expression is blamed instead of user code.
That is the key problem.
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
2013/1/4 Neil Toronto :
> I gave `for/sum:' a little thought recently, though, and I couldn't think of
> how to make it work without annotations. Maybe you'll have more success. I'm
> less motivated to fix `for/sum:' than you are. :D
Here is my attempt. The only problem, is that when type checking
On 01/04/2013 01:27 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
2013/1/3 Neil Toronto :
I solved it by not using `for/sum' and writing this ridiculous function for
the recursive base case and the initial values in `x':
(: zero-of (case-> (Real -> Real)
(Number -> Number)))
(define
2013/1/3 Neil Toronto :
> I solved it by not using `for/sum' and writing this ridiculous function for
> the recursive base case and the initial values in `x':
>
> (: zero-of (case-> (Real -> Real)
> (Number -> Number)))
> (define (zero-of x) 0)
>
> Fortunately, it should ge
This looks like an instance of the problem Neil reported on Monday.
I'll discuss Neil's solution with Sam.
Vincent
At Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:47:56 +0100,
Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>
> Ignore the previous example. Here is the example again, now
> with correct usage of case-lambda. The for/sum proble
I solved it by not using `for/sum' and writing this ridiculous function
for the recursive base case and the initial values in `x':
(: zero-of (case-> (Real -> Real)
(Number -> Number)))
(define (zero-of x) 0)
Fortunately, it should get inlined. I also renamed `U' to `V'
Ignore the previous example. Here is the example again, now
with correct usage of case-lambda. The for/sum problem remains.
/Jens Axel
#lang typed/racket
(require math)
(: matrix-solve-upper
(All (A) (case->
((Matrix Real) (Matrix Real) -> (Matrix Real))
9 matches
Mail list logo
