Untyped Scheme should be built on Typed Scheme? WAS: Re: [plt-scheme] macro question

Hi folks,

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Grant Rettke <grettke at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:40 AM, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com wrote:
>>> In my opinion, untyped Scheme needs to be built on top of typed Scheme,
>>> not the other way around.  But until this revolution happens, I'm
>>> happy to use it they way it is.
>>
>> NSF wasn't willing to fund a time machine, even when I promised I'd add cold
>> fusion.
>
> You were joking around here, but is there any truth to it?
>
> Theoretically if you could start over, would you implement Untyped
> Scheme on top of a Typed Scheme?

Was this a dumb question or did no one reply because I only asked Matthias?

It is open for everyone.