At Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:59:17 -0700, Alexis King wrote: > An alternative approach that > I have considered (and discussed briefly with some people) is to > introduce a “value” scope using make-syntax-introducer in > #%module-begin, then use a separate “type” scope when parsing types to > keep the two bindings completely separate.
That sounds right to me. > Specifically, the main question occurs when considering code that spans > more than a single module. What do require and provide do? For the > provide case, it doesn’t seem too hard to have a (type-out ....) provide > transformer, but what happens when a user requires the module? Since my > understanding is that modules essentially only provide a set of > *symbols* per phase, not identifiers, would I need to mangle names in > order to allow a module to export a type with the same name as a value? > Would I need to write my own version of require to handle this without > wrapping all imports in a require transformer? What about interop with > other Racket languages? You could put all the type exports in a submodule. Then, you do need your own variant of `require`, but that variant can mostly just check for the presence of a type submodule, much the way that TR or `plai-typed` do. If the submodule is available, you can import it with the extra scope for types. -- 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.
