Hi all,
I wonder what the best way is to integrate formlets into typed programs. I
simply `require/typed` formlet-display as type (-> Any Any), which is not
illuminating, but the display part is rarely the problem.
formlet-process is tricky. The earliest point at which I 'know' the type of
processing a given formlet is directly when formlet-process is called, so
that's the best time to start typing to get most of the types checked.
Ideally I would do something like:
(define s-formlet
(formlet (div (label "Enter a string:")
,{=> input-string a-string})
[a-string : String]))
and be done with it. Of course I cannot type it this way. One solution is
to define
(define (s-formlet-process a-formlet a-request)
(formlet-process a-formlet a-request))
provide it, and then require it with the correct type in the next file.
That's sort of what I am doing right now, but it requires quite a bit of
boiler-plate everywhere. The problem is that I don't see how I would even
start typing s-formlet itself, since (I think) it is a macro that changes
how formlet-process deals with it, so I don't even know where to start
typing any of it. When I expand formlet-process in the macro stepper, it
turns into the application of some idY11 with something lifted (none of
which I understand), and I don't see how I would make the type of
(formlet-process a-formlet ...) dependent on which formlet it is that I am
processing.
One idea I had is to define my-formlet-process which takes the name as a
symbol, rather than as an id, and uses different type signatures depending
on the symbol, using case->:
#lang racket
;; UNTYPED
(define (my-formlet-process name req)
(cond [(eq? name 'integer-formlet) (formlet-process integer-formlet req)]
[(eq? name 'string-formlet) (formlet-process string-formlet
req)]
...
and then require/typed this via (case-> (-> 'integer-formlet Integer) (->
'string-formlet String)). This cuts down on having to define all the
intermediaries, and puts all the types for formlets in one place. It still
feels more tedious than it has to be, but it is probably not trivial to
make this much easier.
Any thoughts on if the above is an OK if not best practice, or ideas for
improvements? I guess using types with some rather sophisticated macros may
in general be a little tricky - any pointers to other places on how to do
this and how to figure out how to type it are appreciated.
Cheers,
Marc
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/6241af3c-4b2d-43a5-a76a-2a14b02bc153%40googlegroups.com.
