[racket-dev] flonum vs. inexact-real

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> 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).

This may be a while. Probably better not to wait.

What if there were a mode where typed scheme didn't raise an exception
when it found a type error but expanded into something that begins
with a runtime error and leaves information around for check syntax to
report, interactively?

> A protocol like 'disappeared-binding
> would work well for Typed Racket here.

Probably you'd want more than that, right? Lets see if we can figure
out what you'd want to display and then how check syntax could help
you display it.

Robby