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 <div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 12, 2014 12:15 PM, "Robby Findler" <<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 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 <<a href="mailto:samth@cs.indiana.edu">samth@cs.indiana.edu</a>> 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 > <<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:matthias@ccs.neu.edu">matthias@ccs.neu.edu</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:raould@gmail.com">raould@gmail.com</a>> 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: >>>>> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________ >>>> Racket Users list: >>>> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a> >>> >>> >>> ____________________ >>> Racket Users list: >>> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a> >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a> </blockquote></div>