[plt-scheme] Native code generation and immutable pairs  

From: Paul Schlie (schlie at comcast.net)
Date: Fri Mar 10 22:07:28 EST 2006

Greg Woodhouse wrote:
> Is it too radical to suggest that optional type declarations be
> introduced into Scheme (a la ML)? Assuming all the attendant problems
> could be solved, you  might be able to include something like
> (signature my_function (number number) (immutable-list (any)))
> to tell the compiler that my_function takes two numbers and retutrns an
> immutable list. I'm not sure if its good enough to introduce a "type"
> any, allowing any x any to subsume a x b, a x a, etc. I don't think
> products would be a problem, but what about recursive types? How does
> mutability work with a type system?

Sorry, hadn't seen this prior to my note;

However I obviously fully agree this is the correct approach, and
should hopefully ideally not be perceived as being too radical :)

Posted on the users mailing list.