Re: [racket-dev] Implementation question

2014-04-20 Thread Matthias Felleisen
Here is a more Racket-y version of this: #lang racket (define (ping hostname port-no personalip) (define c (make-custodian)) (define t (parameterize ((current-custodian c)) (thread (lambda () (with-handlers ((exn:fail:network? (lambda

Re: [racket-dev] Regular expression types [was Re: [racket-bug] all/14455: wrong type for hash]

2014-04-20 Thread Matthias Felleisen
This might be one of those areas where we could 'generalize' gradual typing. On Apr 19, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote: Are there type systems that can? It seems like you could specify this type and

Re: [racket-dev] Regular expression types [was Re: [racket-bug] all/14455: wrong type for hash]

2014-04-20 Thread Asumu Takikawa
On 2014-04-20 14:38:50 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: This might be one of those areas where we could 'generalize' gradual typing. I think we could do it without fundamentally changing anything about gradual typing. The issue is that uniform rest args assume that the type is always a

Re: [racket-dev] Regular expression types [was Re: [racket-bug] all/14455: wrong type for hash]

2014-04-20 Thread Eric Dobson
Asumu has a rough draft of a commit that would allow this to work, I don't know the current status though. https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/564 I was thinking about the problem and I think our current union types and recursive types covers a lot of ground. For example as one user wanted to

Re: [racket-dev] Regular expression types [was Re: [racket-bug] all/14455: wrong type for hash]

2014-04-20 Thread Matthias Felleisen
Sorry guys, I had something different in mind. When I ask people to port my typical 'Hell' code, I tend to suggest that all XML-related code should stay in Untyped. In most cases this kind of S-expression manipulation is hairy from an ordinary TR pov but has a simple interface to the Typed