bril de 2014 15:55
> To: users@racket-lang.org
> Subject: [racket] # and backward compatibility
>
> This message is about an experiment that would improve Racket
> but introduce a backward incompatibility. We'd like more
> information about how the change affects you
On Apr 18, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 09:00 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
>>
>>> Another benefit is that Typed Racket will no longer have to consider
>>> non-function letrec bindings as having the type (U Undef
On 04/18/2014 09:00 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Apr 18, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
Another benefit is that Typed Racket will no longer have to consider non-function letrec
bindings as having the type (U Undefined A) where A is the "real" type.
(Technically, (U Undefined A)
Backward compatibility is usually valuable and rarely virtuous.
If the Racket dev team considers something an "obvious improvement to the
language," then it should go into the language.
> Backward-Compatibility
> --
>
> The change is an obvious improvement to the language, b
If you have a chance to give it a try and let us know what you can
about what happens, we'd be very interested.
Robby
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> I don't think this change would affect any code I've written.
>
> There are a few parts of one large system on which I con
At Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:48:51 -0600, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 07:54 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > Based on our experiment so far, it looks like the drawbacks probably
> > outweigh the benefits...
>
> I think you meant this the other way around. :)
Right!!
Racket U
On Apr 18, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> Another benefit is that Typed Racket will no longer have to consider
> non-function letrec bindings as having the type (U Undefined A) where A is
> the "real" type. (Technically, (U Undefined A) *was* the real type.)
That was my primary mot
I don't think this change would affect any code I've written.
There are a few parts of one large system on which I consult that
*might* be affected, but probably not. (Parts written a long time ago
by unknown superintelligent ancient astronauts, who I suppose might use
undefined values, or kn
On 04/18/2014 07:54 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
No one expects the # value!
Is this a... subtle... reference? [1]
Based on our experiment so far, it looks like the drawbacks probably
outweigh the benefits...
I think you meant this the other way around. :)
Another benefit is that Typed Racket
We'd also like to try to understand the ramifications of this
particular backwards incompatibility to help refine our understanding
of backward incompatibility in general and help inform us for changes
like this that we might make in the future.
To that end, if you do give the new version a try, w
This message is about an experiment that would improve Racket but
introduce a backward incompatibility. We'd like more information about
how the change affects your code (see questions at the end).
Undefined
-
If you've programmed in Racket enough, and especially if you've ever
converted
11 matches
Mail list logo
