[racket] fl vs. unsafe-fl

From: Dmitry Pavlov (dpavlov at ipa.nw.ru)
Date: Tue Sep 2 12:13:50 EDT 2014

>> I agree with you; however, I think I am in an unlucky situation.
>> I actually have to write code that works with flonums or (optionally)
>> with extflonums. As Extflonums are not part of the numeric tower,
>> Typed Racket will not allow me to use "+" instead of "extfl+".
> But `fl+` and `unsafe-fl+` also do not work on Extflonums, so you
> should be able to use TR and then just replace uses of unsafe-fl+ with
> + as appropriate, and your extfl+ will still be there.

Right. I was just dreaming about Typed Racket replacing "+"
with "fl+" or "extfl+" basing on compile-time type inference.



Posted on the users mailing list.