On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpav...@ipa.nw.ru> wrote: > >>> I agree with you; however, I think I am in an unlucky situation. >>> I actually have to write code that works with flonums or (optionally) >>> with extflonums. As Extflonums are not part of the numeric tower, >>> Typed Racket will not allow me to use "+" instead of "extfl+". >> >> >> >> But `fl+` and `unsafe-fl+` also do not work on Extflonums, so you >> should be able to use TR and then just replace uses of unsafe-fl+ with >> + as appropriate, and your extfl+ will still be there. > > > Right. I was just dreaming about Typed Racket replacing "+" > with "fl+" or "extfl+" basing on compile-time type inference.
Ah, ok. I don't think we'll do that, since we want to keep the same Racket runtime semantics. However, if there was a `generic-+` with that behavior (which you could then rename to `+` :) then TR could optimize as you desired (maybe). Sam ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
