[plt-scheme] macro question

Your statement is confusing.  Are you conducting research on typed Scheme to provide evidence for 
the thus-far unfounded rumor that significant errors are discovered with type systems?

I wouldn't knock the importance of typo-level bugs, even if they aren't sexy or good research 
fodder.  Having tools that can automatically pick them out (as opposed to having to write unit tests 
for this) is very convenient.  Then unit tests can be used to check more significant logical 
properties of code.  Of course, very sophisticated type systems may have that property too.

Mike

Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 
> On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Michael Vanier wrote:
> 
>> Completely off-topic, I have to say that I am really keen on the idea 
>> of typed Scheme (which I haven't used yet, though I've read the 
>> paper).  I found that about 90% of the bugs in my code were stupid 
>> type errors.  Contracts would probably have helped a lot too.
> 
> 1. Typed Scheme will be released as a part of 4.0 so you can play with 
> it as you wish.
> 
> 2. I consider it a nothing but an unfounded rumor that significant 
> errors are discovered with type systems. I wouldn't conduct this 
> research if finding typo-level errors were the only benefit of types. 
> Basic unit testing exposes even more of these typo-level bugs, plus some 
> significant ones.
> 
> -- Matthias
>