[racket-dev] Typed versions of untyped collections

I've long thought something along these lines is a good idea, but perhaps
what I think is a good idea isn't what Matthias and Sam think is the bad
idea.

I think that it makes sense for 'require' in typed-racket to look in a
different place than 'require' in untyped racket looks so that one can
write the same require spec (in both the docs and the code) and have two
versions of the same library, one that is typed and one that isn't typed.
Then, then library writer, if they choose, can decide who pays what for
going (or not) across the boundary between typed and untyped. (Or maybe
submodules would be better.)

I think this is already happening in TR anyways, when I write

  (require racket/list)

I don't get the same file being loaded when that is in a TR program as when
it is in a R program.

If the convention how the names get adjusted and whatnot is just
documented, then every library writer can provide both versions.

And yes, there are details I'm glossing over here, but just doing nothing
isn't helping.

Robby
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20121217/83334b4e/attachment.html>