1. define structs in untyped racket; 2. (require/typed/provide) it with #:constructor-name option.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Antonio Menezes Leitao < antonio.menezes.lei...@ist.utl.pt> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been using Typed Racket in the last few months and it has been an > interesting experience. > > However, there are a few helpful features of "normal" Racket that are not > yet available in Typed Racket. > > One of them is the ability to use #:constructor-name in struct type > definitions. > > I used rename-out as a replacement but it is not the same thing and it has > other annoying effects. > > So, my questions are: > > 1. Are there any plans to support #:constructor-name in Typed Racket? > > 2. Which techniques do you recommend to circumvent that lack > of #:constructor-name ? > > Best regards, > António. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
