Ten minutes in, I've hit a snag. I'd like the stuff in math/functions to
have precise types. For example, log1p could have the type
(case-> (Zero -> Zero)
(Float -> Float)
(Real -> Real))
It was easy to get the implementation to typecheck, but when I tried to
plot it in untyped Racket, I got this:
Type Checker: The type of log1p cannot be converted to a contract in:
log1p
I really don't want to have two versions of the library. Could TR use
the most general type (Real -> Real) as the contract? Or would that be
unsound?
Neil ⊥
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
