> Yes, but you can't infer the _definitions_ of types. So what I meant was, > you must define your types before writing programs. In Racket, you can just > think about a class of data (e.g. "all the numbers and strings") and write a
not sure this is a black and white situation; seems like haskell/ml have some pre-defined types that would already be covered, have operations, be inferrable from the operations used. >> i think it could be more that in non T Racket, you *cannot* use types > I'm not sure what you mean. You get a similar guarantee in TR. i didn't write it well enough, apologies -- "non T Racket" meaning "non-Typed Racket" as in old-school Racket, before TR existed. sincerely. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
