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

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.

    Henk Boom