[racket-dev] flonum vs. inexact-real

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> Would it make sense for typed scheme to hook up with check syntax to
> show the type of subexpressions (say when mousing over parens or
> something)? I'm not sure if that's too late in general, but it seems
> like we're getting the point where we want to give programmers
> interactive feedback, at least about numbers.

I think this is a good idea (made even better if we eventually have
Check Syntax running online).  A protocol like 'disappeared-binding
would work well for Typed Racket here.
-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu