Yes. This is an HLI problem that we wish to tackle at some point. We have discussed it more than once. Ideas and implementation contributions welcome. -- Matthias
On Sep 22, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote: > Isn't it possible to have a significantly simpler *printed* type even > if you WERE exploiting this information? The fact that > > Complex Complex > > doesn't type is true even if the type of < were "merely" > > Real Real Real * > > That doesn't preclude < from ALSO being of other types, like > > Integer Integer > > and so on. That is, the others are surely subsumed by some more > general type, and the error message can merely print the "least > subsumed" type(s) relative to the arguments. > > Shriram _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
