Yes, there is a larger issue here. In general, the typed/untyped boundary may change the eq? behavior. Some types won't (opaque types from the untyped side, monomorphic struct types from the typed side) but in general you won't get stable eq? results.
Sam On Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 8:04 PM Anthony Carrico <acarr...@memebeam.org> wrote: > On 09/17/2015 04:40 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > Unfortunately, the problem isn't just macros -- the underlying functions > > that actually implement RackUnit would have to be copied into Typed > > Racket. I don't know a way to make `check-eq?` work that doesn't require > > duplicating code. :( > > Is there a bigger problem with eq? and the type boundary? For example, > if I represent a "canonical" object with a reference type, could it > suddenly become non-canonical after crossing into untyped code? Or, if I > use it as a key in a weak hash table in TR, move it across the boundary > to untyped code, could the table lose that entry? I found this check-eq? > issue disturbing. > > -- > Anthony Carrico > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
