[racket] Puzzled about type inference

A. won't work; the communication has to be things that can be
transmitted on place channels. Currently, all of this communication is
already position-based. Of course, it's easy to make position based
information from a syntax object.

B.: I don't see what you mean. Why does DrRacket know better than TR
how to format TR types?

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
<samth at cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> I think that it would work better to:
>
> a. Associate the information with a syntax object rather than a location.
> b. Provide an sexp rather than a string, so that it can be formatted
> appropriately by DrRacket.
>
> Sam
>
> On Aug 12, 2014 12:15 PM, "Robby Findler" <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> That would be great. I think you'd just want to tell check syntax "at
>> this position, here is a string to show the user". Is that ok? (And
>> you'd put newlines in the string to format it, I guess?)
>>
>> Robby
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
>> <samth at cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> > [rather late]
>> >
>> > Typed Racket knows quite a bit about the types of expressions, not
>> > just constants, even when type checking fails. I think we could use a
>> > logging mechanism similar to the one that allows check syntax to work
>> > even when type checking fails to communicate types of sub-expressions
>> > to DrRacket.
>> >
>> > There are some cases where expressions are typechecked twice that
>> > might cause problems, but in general this should be pretty easy.
>> >
>> > Sam
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Robby Findler
>> > <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> >> Is TR's type checker organized in such a way that the decisions about
>> >> what types are given to constants decided as a separate (first) phase?
>> >> That is, no matter the context, is this constant:
>> >>
>> >>    #(0 0)
>> >>
>> >> always going to be given the type (Vector Integer Integer), assuming
>> >> there is no annotation?
>> >>
>> >> If so, then it seems like TR could communicate that series of
>> >> decisions even when type checking fails and that that might be useful
>> >> for this program?
>> >>
>> >> Robby
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>> >> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> You guys came up with some wonderful ideas.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think this particular one is easy to implement when
>> >>> the program type checks. But when it doesn't, what do
>> >>> you show?
>> >>>
>> >>> -- Matthias
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Aug 5, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Aug 5, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Raoul Duke <raould at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>     add type declarations to variables and fields and function and
>> >>>>>>> method signatures.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> A good motto, which I shall endeavour to remember.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> what i do not get about TR and other languages (ocaml, haskell,
>> >>>>> etc.)
>> >>>>> is: there are these rules of thumb that you must somehow learn to
>> >>>>> keep
>> >>>>> yourself out of the weeds, but you only get to learn them the long
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> hard way. why don't the runtimes/ides
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (1) have a switch that says "hey, force me, the user, to put in type
>> >>>>> annotations by hand in the critical places, ok? so i don't have to
>> >>>>> suffer so much down the road, ok?"
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (2) put the inferred annotations into the code as it goes along so i
>> >>>>> can see what kind of crazy talk the inference engine is having with
>> >>>>> itself?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I’m just wondering, would it be possible for DrRacket to do something
>> >>>> where you can right-click a variable or expression or something and one of
>> >>>> the options is to see what the inferred type is?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> ____________________
>> >>>>> Racket Users list:
>> >>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ____________________
>> >>>>  Racket Users list:
>> >>>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________
>> >>>   Racket Users list:
>> >>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>> >>
>> >> ____________________
>> >>   Racket Users list:
>> >>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users