[plt-scheme] Matching typed structs in untyped code

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Tue Jun 9 12:35:58 EDT 2009

On Jun  9, Sam TH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Matthias Felleisen<matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The philosophy behind Typed Scheme is "no matching required,
> > needed, in demand". Code as you always have. -- Matthias
> That's not to say that I don't encourage use of match, both for
> typed and for untyped code.  But it shouldn't be required for Typed
> Scheme any more than for any other flavor of Scheme.

The implicit need in Noel's example is `define-type' -- that *is*
something that is useful without TS, but even more if you get the ML
advantages that I have in my class code (error when a case is missing,
or is unreachable).

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!

Posted on the users mailing list.