WIP: Redefine for/first and for*/first.#1252
Draft
scolobb wants to merge 1 commit intoracket:masterfrom
Draft
Conversation
|
This pull request has been mentioned on Racket Discussions. There might be relevant details there: https://racket.discourse.group/t/for-first-for-first-for-and-for-and-for-last-in-typed-racket/1002/4 |
scolobb
force-pushed
the
for/first
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4bedd6e to
9dff94d
Compare
Member
|
you can convert this pr to a draft if you want |
Contributor
Author
|
Thank you @capfredf I have just converted this PR to draft. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
My very drafty approach at updating the typed definition of typed
for/firstandfor*/first.I don't currently see any reason why Typed Racket would not be able to contain a proper typed implementation of
for/firstandfor*/first. This PR suggests a very crude and potentially broken approach to implementing these two iterations in Typed Racket. I don't think this PR is mergeable in its current state, but perhaps it may grow into better code.This discussion contains more details.