|
Type declarations for SRFIs? Artyom Bologov (05 Aug 2026 12:14 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Peter Bex
(05 Aug 2026 12:24 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Artyom Bologov
(05 Aug 2026 13:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(05 Aug 2026 16:20 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(05 Aug 2026 15:58 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Artyom Bologov
(05 Aug 2026 18:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Philip McGrath
(06 Aug 2026 00:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(06 Aug 2026 20:26 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(06 Aug 2026 21:07 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Artyom Bologov
(06 Aug 2026 22:28 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Artyom Bologov
(06 Sep 2026 11:06 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(06 Sep 2026 17:57 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Artyom Bologov
(06 Sep 2026 18:47 UTC)
|
|
Re: Type declarations for SRFIs?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(06 Sep 2026 21:41 UTC)
|
Hi y’all, How would you look at a project rigorously documenting types of all (or most) SRFIs? This might allow statically typed implementations like CRUNCH to easier infer types. Also helps to write more performant code. And allows to understand the shape of args for a given procedure. I’m not going to pull it off alone, though. Thus the question: is anyone interested in such a project? The format I suggest is SRFI 273 declare-checked <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-273/srfi-273.html#spec--declare-checked> with a set of combinators from SRFI 235 <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-235/srfi-235.html> to have union (disjoin) and complement types. Is there a need for such a thing? Thanks, -- Artyom Bologov https://aartaka.me