[plt-scheme] Standard ML in PLT Scheme

Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Are the denotations of 1 the same in ML as in Scheme? How about closures?
>
> Conjecture: It looks like you have created an unsound hybrid language. 
> I.e., unsound from the perspective of ML; its invariants can be 
> undermined now.
>

My conjecture is that if type-inference (which includes type checking) 
of haMLet is used, you can't violate an ML invariant in pure ML: you 
have to do it in Scheme.

> -- Matthias
>
>
Chongkai