On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Norman Gray wrote:
>> date->seconds has a sort of core-ish feel."
>
> That's correct. There are two problems here: first, `date->seconds'
> is missing a type, along with most of the rest of the `racke
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Norman Gray wrote:
> (Is the list generally OK for straight bug reports? There isn't a bug parade
> I should be posting this on, is there?)
For things that are definitely bugs like this, you can report them
using "Submit Bug Report" in the Help menu in DrRacket
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Norman Gray wrote:
> date->seconds has a sort of core-ish feel."
That's correct. There are two problems here: first, `date->seconds'
is missing a type, along with most of the rest of the `racket/date'
library. Second, there's a bug in Typed Racket that causes t
On 2011 Aug 22, at 01:30, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> I wrote so. That's why I believe that the existing TR confused Norman into
>> requiring date->seconds from an UNTYPED
>> module. I really think we need require:.
>
> There might be some confusion here because there are two kinds of
> typed modu
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>
>> You can't. You can require stuff from *typed* modules.
>
> I wrote so. That's why I believe that the existing TR confused Norman into
> requiring date->seconds from an UNTYPED
>
On Aug 21, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> You can't. You can require stuff from *typed* modules.
I wrote so. That's why I believe that the existing TR confused Norman into
requiring date->seconds from an UNTYPED module. I really think we need
require:.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> The way I understand the word "ought" comes with a moral connotation.
> In this sense, I am saying
>
> (1) require should not exist in TR
>
> (2) require: should exist for importing from typed modules
>
> (3) require-typed should exist
That's another good idea: translate provide/contract specs
into types.
On Aug 21, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Perhaps it would be nice to have require exist in TR but for it to
> collaborate with provide/contract to turn the parts of the contracts
> that it can into types (and le
Perhaps it would be nice to have require exist in TR but for it to
collaborate with provide/contract to turn the parts of the contracts
that it can into types (and leave behind some contract checking) and,
when you or Ryan or someone figures out how macros & contracts work
together, to fit those in
The way I understand the word "ought" comes with a moral connotation.
In this sense, I am saying
(1) require should not exist in TR
(2) require: should exist for importing from typed modules
(3) require-typed should exist for importing from untyped modules.
Why? The idea of explicit speci
Greetings.
On 2011 Aug 21, at 18:38, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> The error
> Norman reported looks like an internal error in TR related to the
> contract on date->seconds.
This was my impression. Sorry if it wasn't clear, but my intention was to
report the occurrence of the internal-looking error.
I still don't follow. There's a shallow error -- 'ought' means the
same as 'should', presumably you mean to remove 'be able to' instead.
But there's also a deeper error, as far as I can tell. In general,
one should use require rather than require/typed so you use a
binding's originally assigned t
I should have used 'ought' instead of 'should'.
On Aug 21, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> Plain require works fine in Typed Racket; there's only a problem if TR
> cannot typecheck the resulting code. You normally only need to use
> require/typed to assign types to otherwise-unty
Plain require works fine in Typed Racket; there's only a problem if TR
cannot typecheck the resulting code. You normally only need to use
require/typed to assign types to otherwise-untyped imports. The error
Norman reported looks like an internal error in TR related to the
contract on date->secon
You shouldn't be able to use plain require in Typed Racket.
Try this:
#lang typed/racket
(require/typed racket/date (date->seconds (date -> Natural)))
(date->seconds (seconds->date (current-seconds)))
On Aug 21, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Norman Gray wrote:
>
> Greetings.
>
> Another typed-racket
15 matches
Mail list logo
