A. won't work; the communication has to be things that can be transmitted on place channels. Currently, all of this communication is already position-based. Of course, it's easy to make position based information from a syntax object.
B.: I don't see what you mean. Why does DrRacket know better than TR how to format TR types? On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: > I think that it would work better to: > > a. Associate the information with a syntax object rather than a location. > b. Provide an sexp rather than a string, so that it can be formatted > appropriately by DrRacket. > > Sam > > On Aug 12, 2014 12:15 PM, "Robby Findler" <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> > wrote: >> >> That would be great. I think you'd just want to tell check syntax "at >> this position, here is a string to show the user". Is that ok? (And >> you'd put newlines in the string to format it, I guess?) >> >> Robby >> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt >> <sa...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: >> > [rather late] >> > >> > Typed Racket knows quite a bit about the types of expressions, not >> > just constants, even when type checking fails. I think we could use a >> > logging mechanism similar to the one that allows check syntax to work >> > even when type checking fails to communicate types of sub-expressions >> > to DrRacket. >> > >> > There are some cases where expressions are typechecked twice that >> > might cause problems, but in general this should be pretty easy. >> > >> > Sam >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Robby Findler >> > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> >> Is TR's type checker organized in such a way that the decisions about >> >> what types are given to constants decided as a separate (first) phase? >> >> That is, no matter the context, is this constant: >> >> >> >> #(0 0) >> >> >> >> always going to be given the type (Vector Integer Integer), assuming >> >> there is no annotation? >> >> >> >> If so, then it seems like TR could communicate that series of >> >> decisions even when type checking fails and that that might be useful >> >> for this program? >> >> >> >> Robby >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen >> >> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> You guys came up with some wonderful ideas. >> >>> >> >>> I think this particular one is easy to implement when >> >>> the program type checks. But when it doesn't, what do >> >>> you show? >> >>> >> >>> -- Matthias >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Aug 5, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Aug 5, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> add type declarations to variables and fields and function and >> >>>>>>> method signatures. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> A good motto, which I shall endeavour to remember. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> what i do not get about TR and other languages (ocaml, haskell, >> >>>>> etc.) >> >>>>> is: there are these rules of thumb that you must somehow learn to >> >>>>> keep >> >>>>> yourself out of the weeds, but you only get to learn them the long >> >>>>> and >> >>>>> hard way. why don't the runtimes/ides >> >>>>> >> >>>>> (1) have a switch that says "hey, force me, the user, to put in type >> >>>>> annotations by hand in the critical places, ok? so i don't have to >> >>>>> suffer so much down the road, ok?" >> >>>>> >> >>>>> (2) put the inferred annotations into the code as it goes along so i >> >>>>> can see what kind of crazy talk the inference engine is having with >> >>>>> itself? >> >>>> >> >>>> I’m just wondering, would it be possible for DrRacket to do something >> >>>> where you can right-click a variable or expression or something and one >> >>>> of >> >>>> the options is to see what the inferred type is? >> >>>> >> >>>>> ____________________ >> >>>>> Racket Users list: >> >>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________ >> >>>> Racket Users list: >> >>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________ >> >>> Racket Users list: >> >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >> >> >> ____________________ >> >> Racket Users list: >> >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
