All good points on TR development flows.
If I could elaborate from my perspective on Neils' #3. I think this is the
#1 benefit of TR over R. Yes, static type checking, real-time while you
type is superb road kill on the highway of code development And I do
enjoy it so.
BUT what TR really, rea
On 12/31/2012 02:56 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
At Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:27:50 -0700,
Neil Toronto wrote:
2. Don't generalize argument types in let loops.
This is a bad idea. Often, inferring the types of loops only works
because of type generalization.
Agreed. Since this one is only a probl
On 01/01/2013 03:35 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Neil,
thanks for the user story. We should hear more of those for all kinds of
corners in our world.
You're welcome!
Question: did you start the math library in an untyped form (and switch) or did
you go with types from the get-go?
It's
On 01/01/2013 04:16 PM, stamo...@racket-lang.org wrote:
stamourv has updated `master' from 1f8370d2d6 to 678451f8c4.
http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/1f8370d2d6..678451f8c4
=[ 2 Commits ]==
Directory summary:
10.3% collects/tests/typed-
Hi everyone,
I've been working on a parsing framework with the design goal to be
easy to use. I'm calling it "ragg": Racket AST Generator Generator.
(It used to be called 'autogrammar', but that was too much of a
mouthful. Thanks to Joe Politz for the new name!)
The current source code uses PLa
Neil,
thanks for the user story. We should hear more of those for all kinds of
corners in our world.
Question: did you start the math library in an untyped form (and switch) or did
you go with types from the get-go?
-- Matthias
On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> The sub
On Dec 31, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> I'm not sure that an ad-hoc naming solution is the right thing. I
> really want to avoid adding more ad-hoc complexity to the Typed Racket
> type checker, and instead work on simplifying it into something that
> can be more precisely char
At Tue, 01 Jan 2013 14:16:27 -0700, Neil Toronto wrote:
> I looked into fixing this myself, and identified this as a spot to
> change. I also saw some JIT-looking stuff for `flexpt' that looked kind
> of like it was machine code, so I didn't try to fix it. Does this code
> you just changed get c
On 01/01/2013 12:36 PM, mfl...@racket-lang.org wrote:
07d5a9e Matthew Flatt 2013-01-01 12:31
:
| fix `expt' on small negative number and large positive odd
|
| The pow() function apparently gets it wrong on some platforms.
|
| Closes PR 13391
Thanks, Matthew. I'm looking forward to getting bug
9 matches
Mail list logo
