[racket] Puzzled about type inference

You guys came up with some wonderful ideas. 

I think this particular one is easy to implement when 
the program type checks. But when it doesn't, what do 
you show? 

-- Matthias





On Aug 5, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:

> 
> On Aug 5, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Raoul Duke <raould at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>     add type declarations to variables and fields and function and method signatures.
>>> 
>>> A good motto, which I shall endeavour to remember.
>> 
>> what i do not get about TR and other languages (ocaml, haskell, etc.)
>> is: there are these rules of thumb that you must somehow learn to keep
>> yourself out of the weeds, but you only get to learn them the long and
>> hard way. why don't the runtimes/ides
>> 
>> (1) have a switch that says "hey, force me, the user, to put in type
>> annotations by hand in the critical places, ok? so i don't have to
>> suffer so much down the road, ok?"
>> 
>> (2) put the inferred annotations into the code as it goes along so i
>> can see what kind of crazy talk the inference engine is having with
>> itself?
> 
> I’m just wondering, would it be possible for DrRacket to do something where you can right-click a variable or expression or something and one of the options is to see what the inferred type is?  
> 
>> ____________________
>> Racket Users list:
>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
> 
> 
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users