Hmm, type annotations in typed racket is defined according to http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/more.html#%28part._.Type_.Annotation_and_.Binding_.Forms%29
Any objections against that scheme? ideas? A suggestion would be to have a type item in tree-il that works like (<type> type expression) And at first stage let tree-il->glil code just ignore this information. For <let> tree-il code we could just use the method (let ((x : number 1)) code) --> (<let> ((<type> number x)) (1) code) For lambda expressions we could use (lambda ([x : integer]) : symbol code) as (<lambda> ((<type> integer x)) (<type> symbol code)) So, a first step would be to enter a type tree-il record and then make sure that various tree-il->* translators can use them (ignoring them at first). modify scheme->tree-il to allow typeed variants, and also enter a (type x) form directly. What do you think? On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > Thanks for this mail, it's interesting. > > On Fri 06 May 2011 23:18, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> > writes: > > > It would be good if there was a standard way to enter type information > > in guile and if that information could be hooked into the tree-il > > representation. But until then I will just use a simple macro > > framework to enter typed functions. > > Agreed, that this would be good. Something to think about for 2.2. > > Happy hacking, > > Andy > -- > http://wingolog.org/ >
