[racket-dev] Five feature/limitation interactions conspire to drive mad

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 1 17:34:35 EST 2013

On Dec 31, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:

> I'm not sure that an ad-hoc naming solution is the right thing.  I
> really want to avoid adding more ad-hoc complexity to the Typed Racket
> type checker, and instead work on simplifying it into something that
> can be more precisely characterized, and thus be more sure that it's
> implemented correctly.
> Is there a generalization of this solution that we can give a clean story for?

"Sometimes you have to make the internals quite complex to make it 
all appear elegant and simple." Guy Steele, as conveyed by Matthew
and confirmed by Sam 

Posted on the dev mailing list.