[racket] TR vs. R - Conflicting def of module path

I think that paths were added to to the Racket grammar since the Typed
Racket definition was written, and the latter just needs an update.

Sam
On Nov 10, 2012 2:25 PM, "Ray Racine" <ray.racine at gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider in R
> #lang racket
>
> (require
>  racket/place/distributed)
>
> (quote-module-path)
> (module-path? (quote-module-path))
> =>
> #<path:/home/ray/pathbug.rkt>
> #t
>
> So a Path type satisfies the module-path? predicate in R.
>
> In TR abbrev.rkt
> (define -Module-Path (Un -Symbol -String
>                          (-lst* (-val 'quote) -Symbol)
>                          (-lst* (-val 'lib) -String)
>                          (-lst* (-val 'file) -String)
>                          (-pair (-val 'planet)
>                           (Un (-lst* -Symbol)
>                               (-lst* -String)
>                               (-lst* -String (-lst* -String -String #:tail
> (make-Listof (Un -Nat (-lst* (Un -Nat (one-of/c '= '+ '-)) -Nat)))))))))
>
> The TR definition of -Module-Path does not allow for a -Path.
>
> TR `Module-Path' is not equivalent to R `module-path?'.  They should
> agree, yes?
>
>
>
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20121110/dbce6adb/attachment.html>