[racket] constructing a boolean that's a filter for a given type? could be automatic?

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 30 18:02:17 EST 2012

On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:00 PM, John Clements wrote:

> 
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> 
>>> Perhaps it should just have less information.
>> 
>> 
>> I like that a lot. 
> 
> I'm not sure I do; if I were on a desert island or had just kicked Sam in the shin yesterday, I'd probably want to examine this type carefully to see whether I could interpret it and whether it actually looked like it should be equivalent to a filter for the type that I wanted.  At a minimum, I'd like to know that the information is available. I realize this is like Guillaume's syntax-errors-for-beginners discussion, but I don't think I reach the same conclusion


This is precisely correct. Just as in the general types case, make information available on demand not immediately. Lazy lazy über alles. 

Posted on the users mailing list.