You guys came up with some wonderful ideas. I think this particular one is easy to implement when the program type checks. But when it doesn't, what do you show?
-- Matthias On Aug 5, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> add type declarations to variables and fields and function and method >>>> signatures. >>> >>> A good motto, which I shall endeavour to remember. >> >> what i do not get about TR and other languages (ocaml, haskell, etc.) >> is: there are these rules of thumb that you must somehow learn to keep >> yourself out of the weeds, but you only get to learn them the long and >> hard way. why don't the runtimes/ides >> >> (1) have a switch that says "hey, force me, the user, to put in type >> annotations by hand in the critical places, ok? so i don't have to >> suffer so much down the road, ok?" >> >> (2) put the inferred annotations into the code as it goes along so i >> can see what kind of crazy talk the inference engine is having with >> itself? > > I’m just wondering, would it be possible for DrRacket to do something where > you can right-click a variable or expression or something and one of the > options is to see what the inferred type is? > >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users