On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Raoul Duke wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Richard Lawrence > <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> wrote: >>> tho i read that even if there are ways to use it, there be dragons in >>> terms of getting the new language just right wrt type enforcement. >> >> Where did you read this? > > possibly misunderstood the intention behind: > > http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Thoughts/Racket_is____.html > > "To summarize, the creation of a safe language demands a lot of > attention from the language designer. First, it demands a thorough > understanding of the invariants that a language should come with. > Second, it calls for a prediction as to where modules in this language > will be used so that the language can be equipped with mechanism that > enforces the invariants in all contexts. Providing support for the > creation of such enforcement mechanisms is one of the research themes > of PLT."
Type checking per module is easy. Enforcing the soundness of types across module boundaries is hard. In general, making sure that a module body lives up to the constraints of the specified language is easy. Enforcing them across module boundaries is harder. That's all -- Matthias _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
