On Aug 13, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: >> 10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >>> `match' also currently adds a syntax property to help the Typed >>> Racket type checker understand the expansion. Like 'disappeared-use >>> for Check Syntax, this property is in theory semantically >>> independent of Typed Racket, but only used there. >> >> No, when your property is called `typechecker:called-in-tail-position' >> it is not independent of a "typecheker". It will be, if it gets a >> generic name, and gets documented which turns it from a backdoor for a >> backward dependency to a known API. > > The *semantic* independence of the property and the typechecker > implementation is not determined either by the name of the property or > the documentation.
There are two levels of semantics here: -- operational semantics of your module, which makes you correct -- 'in spirit' semantics, which makes Eli correct. I will say that even though I cannot define 'in spirit' formally, I am with Eli here. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
