[plt-scheme] Re: Typed Scheme: Is there any easy way around this?

On May 31, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Henk Boom wrote:

> On 31/05/07, Matthew Swank <akopa.gmane.poster at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like it so far.  It is a bit verbose, however.  Are there any
>> plans to support type inference?
>
> That's what I thought until I realized how much contract code I could
> throw away. My typed code ended up being much shorter than my
> contracted code. The only places where it was slightly annoying where
> when I needed trivial anonymous lambda expressions to hand to map and
> the like.
>
> I gave typed scheme a try a while ago, but it didn't seem to have all
> the built-in scheme procedures registered with their proper types yet.
> I don't know exactly what problem I had, but I think it was something
> like cadr was registered as (listof foo) -> foo, but not as (cons a
> (cons b c)) -> b. I looked into adding it myself, but the
> specifications looked quite intimidating.
>
> Other than those snags (which kind of scared me away) and the really
> horrendous error messages it gave, it was really quite cool.

By all means, submit a bug report or send an email to Sam (and me)
if you find such snags. As always we want to turn Typed Scheme into
something useful and accommodate core Scheme programming at a minimum.

-- Matthias