[racket-dev] Typed versions of untyped collections

For the purposes of this conversation, I don't think it is fair to stop
after the comma in your sentence, Eric. :)

Robby


On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dobson at gmail.com>wrote:

> It is getting exactly the same file as R, except there is a special file
> in the TR code that gives types to some bindings (all of the ones from
> racket). Your new module's bindings are not in this file.
>
>
> https://github.com/plt/racket/blob/master/collects/typed-racket/base-env/base-env.rkt
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Robby Findler <
> robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand Matthias's performance comments. If, in TR (require
>> plot) actually gives me a typed version of the library and in R (require
>> plot) gives me the untyped version of the library, then I am avoiding the
>> performance the untyped/typed performance overhead properly. If, on the
>> other hand, if I have to commit that (require plot) gives me either the
>> untyped or the typed version, then I have to suffer the performance
>> overhead when I require it from the "wrong" context.
>>
>> Neil's original complaint also has validity, I think: if he provides a
>> plot/typed today, and then later ports plot so it is typed, then he has to
>> keep this extra thing around for what appears to not be a very good reason.
>>
>> And while I do understand Sam's reluctance to mess with module
>> resolution, I think that just not solving this problem is worse.
>>
>> And finally (and perhaps this is the root of the problem), I cannot
>> understand what TR actually does by reading its documentation.
>>
>> For example, the docs for 'require' do not explain why I can make a copy
>> of "list.rkt" (in the racket collection), call the copy "listt.rkt" and
>> have that copy not work, but the original one does. Clearly TR is not just
>> "get[ting] *exactly* the same file as in R", so I think Sam's comments are
>> off base.
>>
>> Robby
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Robby Findler
>> > <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> > > 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 exactly what Eli was suggesting, and what I think is a
>> bad idea.
>> >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > You get *exactly* the same file as in R.  I think that (a) this is a
>> > valuable invariant and (b) the mechanisms for violating this invariant
>> > are all very worrying.
>> >
>> > Sam
>>
>> _________________________
>>   Racket Developers list:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20121217/6ae4cba1/attachment.html>