On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:31 PM George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> wrote:
> To me, TypedRacket feels much more like ML than like Dylan or Common > Lisp. Type inference is great - when it works. Coarse grained scope > encompassing declarations are great - when you can figure out what > they should be. Reducing busywork and the cognative load on the > programmer seems like it always should be a Good Thing. But when > inference fails and the declarations are unfathomable, and there is no > easy way around the problem save by falling back to SLOW untyped code, > then typing becomes a PITA. To my thinking, there needs to be some > middle ground - like CL's 'the' operator or Dylan's local annotations > - that can disambiguate problems on the spot. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here -- the CL type system works very differently -- but local annotation is certainly possible in Typed Racket. The `ann` form allows you to annotate any expression at all, ie `(ann 17 Integer)`. Sam -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK%3DHD%2BbzHvs%2BNOUf7z6Gb77DWE7NwkYTjQsVH5nCFxJCzj%2BKvw%40mail.gmail.com.
