Three hours ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Neil Toronto wrote: > > > It would, and I'd be happy to do it while I'm on vacation next > > month. Can you submit a change request? > > > > More generally, what would the Powers That Be think of my adding > > various special functions (like probit, inverse probit, Bessel > > functions, gamma, log gamma, etc.) to racket/math? I've already > > written quite a few in Typed Racket for my own use. > > > > Come to think of it, racket/math is a great candidate for being > > written in Typed Racket but the racket collection has to be > > compiled before typed-racket. Is there a way around that? > > I'd love to see math as a TR library. Does it have to be in racket/ > ?
+1 for not being in `racket/math' -- it'll be the same kind of dependency that brings up the mess factor. One way to get the benefits of TR without a dependency could be: * Write the code (without the types) in "racket/private/math.rktl" * Include it as-is in "racket/math.rkt" * Have a "typed/racket/math.rkt" that includes the same source and adds the types. But if the goal is to have *much* more mathy functions, then it seems better to just have a new toplevel collection. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev