I don't think there's a good way to write type assertions as the moment, so let's add one. What syntax do you suggest?
At Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:53:54 -0800, John Clements wrote: > I’ve bitten the bullet and announced to my PL class that we’ll be using #lang > plai-typed. Right now, I’m trying to figure out if there’s an easy way to do > type debugging; in particular, I anticipate wanting to make assertions about > the type of expressions that are buried inside of other expressions. Is there > a > form that allows me to do this? I had imagined that I could do it with ‘let’, > but ‘let’ doesn’t take any type annotations. > > Currently, the best I’ve got is an in-line application to an identity > function > with a type attached. So, for instance, if I have this function > > (define (id x) > x) > > … and I want to ensure that the expression ‘x’ has type number, I can write: > > > (define (id x) > ((lambda ((z : number)) z) x)) > > … but that’s pretty painful. Is there an easier way? (Yes, I could add a type > annotation to the declaration of ‘x’ and to the return type of the function, > but I’m imagining a larger function where the expression in question is > neither > an argument to nor the result of the function.) > > Many thanks, > > John > > > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
