On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > On May 23, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > >>> 2. Is it possible that we could solve the problem via a bootstrapping-only >>> violation of our policy that you can add types to Racket w/o modifying >>> existing modules? >> >> No. We can't specify types inside `racket/base` without making `racket/base` >> depend on Typed Racket. > > > 1. I was proposing a fundamental change to the language, with an eye toward > Racket 2. > > 2. I was also proposing an experiment that temporarily creates such a > dependency and we can then look for a refactoring that breaks the dependency > again but in a way that supports the proper access to these base identifiers.
Given that we're currently working on splitting the entire system to make this dependency impossible, I don't think this is a viable option currently. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
