[racket] fl vs. unsafe-fl

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov at ipa.nw.ru> wrote:
>
>>> 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.

Ah, ok. I don't think we'll do that, since we want to keep the same
Racket runtime semantics. However, if there was a `generic-+` with
that behavior (which you could then rename to `+` :) then TR could
optimize as you desired (maybe).

Sam