On Nov 30, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Manfred Lotz wrote:
>>
>> Now if you are sure that the 15 options you have are all you ever
>> need, why not use a struct with 15 fields or a class with 15 fields?
>> Then you get static checking, without needing any instance-of checks
>> plus occurrence typing.
>
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 17:47:23 -0500
Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> In terms of cost, that's identical to what I had __and__ it locks in
> the number of variants you can deal with.
I agree that in terms of cost there is no difference. Yes, it locks in
the number of variants. Therefore I have one
In terms of cost, that's identical to what I had __and__ it locks in the number
of variants you can deal with. In contrast, mine allows extensions at the point
where you define Myopt; for the new "fields", just pass in the additional type
at the new call site.
Now if you are sure that the 15
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 22:21:14 +0100
Manfred Lotz wrote:
> No I hadn't considered the variant using type?. Thanks for this.
>
> Not quite sure if I'm happy about it as I would prefer to have the
> type checking at one place instead of providing a type each time I
> check/use options.
>
Saying t
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:26:09 -0500
Thanks, Vincent.
Vincent St-Amour
wrote:
> At Sun, 30 Nov 2014 16:38:02 +0100,
> Manfred Lotz wrote:
> > 1. You offered assert? as an alternative. Is this preferable in
> > comparison to cast?
>
> Yes. Assertions are simple first order checks, and are quite
>
No I hadn't considered the variant using type?. Thanks for this.
Not quite sure if I'm happy about it as I would prefer to have the type
checking at one place instead of providing a type each time I check/use
options.
--
Manfred
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:36:26 -0500
Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
At Sun, 30 Nov 2014 16:38:02 +0100,
Manfred Lotz wrote:
> 1. You offered assert? as an alternative. Is this preferable in
> comparison to cast?
Yes. Assertions are simple first order checks, and are quite
inexpensive. Casts, on the other hand, use contracts and may require
wrapping for mutable dat
Have you considered this:
#lang typed/racket
(define-type Myopt (U String Boolean Integer))
(define-type OptList (Listof (Pairof Symbol Myopt)))
(: olist OptList)
(define olist
(list '(dir . ".")
'(verbose . #t)
'(size . 12)))
; This is a fake type, where the "filter" flows
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 09:25:57 -0500
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> I think this is exactly what you need. You could write (< (assert s
> integer?) 0) or (and s (integer? s) (< s 0)), which mostly do the same
> thing.
>
> But the fundamental issue is that this program is well-typed:
>
> (proces
I think this is exactly what you need. You could write (< (assert s
integer?) 0) or (and s (integer? s) (< s 0)), which mostly do the same
thing.
But the fundamental issue is that this program is well-typed:
(process (list (cons 'size "hi")))
since that's a perfectly valid `OptList`. If you
Well, I should have added that I've found this:
(: process (-> OptList Void))
(define (process ol)
(let ([s (optval 'size ol)])
(if (and s (< (cast s Integer) 0))
(displayln "wrong value")
(displayln "ok")))
)
but I didn't find this really nice. Actually, I was hoping
Hi there,
I've got another problem with typed racket.
Let us say I have an assoc list with options for a program. These
options could be of type String, Boolean, or Integer.
Now in my program I want to check certain options but I don't know how
to do without Typed Racket screaming at me.
Here a
This ought to work. I'll look into why it currently doesn't.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Sylvain Sanesti wrote:
> I don't understand why this code doesn't work :
>
> (: & (case-> [True -> One] [False -> Zero]))
> (define (& x) (if (eq? x #t) 1 0))
>
> -> Type Checker: Expected Zero, but got
I don't understand why this code doesn't work :
(: & (case-> [True -> One] [False -> Zero]))
(define (& x) (if (eq? x #t) 1 0))
-> Type Checker: Expected Zero, but got One in: 1
Any idea ?
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ismael Figueroa Palet
wrote:
>
>
> 2011/12/2 Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Ismael Figueroa Palet
>> wrote:
>> > What I'm trying to do, so you get the full picture, is to write a
>> > variation
>> > of Aspect Scheme in Typed Racket, so y
2011/12/2 Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Ismael Figueroa Palet
> wrote:
> > Sam, first I want to thank you for all your answers, you've helped me a
> lot.
> > Thanks!
> >
> >> > I'm trying to implement a function wrapper, that given any function
> >> > returns
> >> > a fun
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Ismael Figueroa Palet
wrote:
> Sam, first I want to thank you for all your answers, you've helped me a lot.
> Thanks!
>
>> > I'm trying to implement a function wrapper, that given any function
>> > returns
>> > a function of the same type, but that maybe applies a d
Sam, first I want to thank you for all your answers, you've helped me a
lot. Thanks!
> I'm trying to implement a function wrapper, that given any function
> returns
> > a function of the same type, but that maybe applies a different
> argument. So
> > far I haven't been successful, and based on p
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Ismael Figueroa Palet
wrote:
>
>
> I'm trying to implement a function wrapper, that given any function returns
> a function of the same type, but that maybe applies a different argument. So
> far I haven't been successful, and based on previous questions to the mail
Greetings,
I'm trying to implement a function wrapper, that given any function returns
a function of the same type, but that maybe applies a different argument.
So far I haven't been successful, and based on previous questions to the
mail list it seemed that I needed to go to an untyped module bec
20 matches
Mail list logo
