In the works Sam would say -- Matthias
On Nov 24, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Ismael Figueroa Palet wrote: > Thanks Robby for your answer, > > When I create an annotated-proc (as in > http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/procedures.html) > > Unfortunately it seems that I lose type information: > > > (annotated-proc (lambda (x) x) (gensym)) > > - : annotated-proc > #<procedure> > > (lambda (x) x) > > - : (Any -> Any : ((! False @ 0) | (False @ 0)) (0)) > #<procedure> > > > > So it seems in Typed Racket applicable structs cannot replace closures? > > > 2011/11/24 Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> > Not a direct answer to your question, but comparing procedures for > equality using eq? can be fragile (contracts will break the equality, > depending on how you use them, for example). > > You might instead use applicable structs to implement the equality by > putting some token you use for equality into a second field. > > Robby > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Ismael Figueroa Palet > <ifiguer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I need to compare to procedures for equality. In the untyped version of the > > code I used eq? and it worked for my purposes. > > Now, in the Typed Racket version I'm having the problem that somehow one of > > the procedures is wrapped in a "typed value" struct while the other is not. > > > > When I display the values I get: > > > > #<Typed Value: #<procedure:A>> #<procedure:A> > > > > is there any way to unwrap the value? > > > > Thanks > > -- > > Ismael > > > > > > _________________________________________________ > > For list-related administrative tasks: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > > > > > > -- > Ismael > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
