[racket-dev] Constructing an identifier to an unexported binding

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>wrote:

>
> On May 23, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >> 2. Is it possible that we could solve the problem via a
> bootstrapping-only violation of our policy that you can add types to Racket
> w/o modifying existing modules?
> >
> > No. We can't specify types inside `racket/base` without making
> `racket/base` depend on Typed Racket.
>
>
> 1. I was proposing a fundamental change to the language, with an eye
> toward Racket 2.
>
> 2. I was also proposing an experiment that temporarily creates such a
> dependency and we can then look for a refactoring that breaks the
> dependency again but in a way that supports the proper access to these base
> identifiers.
>

It shouldn't be necessary to specify types inside racket/base; it's only
necessary to make the identifiers available somehow.  Then TR can do the
type specification, but without using namespaces.  Protecting the exported
identifiers from misuse could be done by convention -- naming them
unsafe-<foo> or exporting them from a submodule named "private" -- or by
enforcement -- for instance, rather than providing them, instead exporting
a phase 1 syntax object that contains them with appropriate syntax taints /
dye packs so that they can be used for free-identifier=? but not put into
expanded code.

--Carl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130523/428e4004/attachment-0001.html>