On Dec 31, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I'm not sure that an ad-hoc naming solution is the right thing. I > really want to avoid adding more ad-hoc complexity to the Typed Racket > type checker, and instead work on simplifying it into something that > can be more precisely characterized, and thus be more sure that it's > implemented correctly. > > Is there a generalization of this solution that we can give a clean story for?
"Sometimes you have to make the internals quite complex to make it all appear elegant and simple." Guy Steele, as conveyed by Matthew and confirmed by Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
