but beware, for
> (for-each
(lambda (x) (printf "~a: ~a\n" (~v x #:min-width 28) (struct->vector
x)))
(list "hello" (let () (struct string (n)) (string 5))))
"hello" : #(struct:string ...)
#<string> : #(struct:string ...)
Ryan
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:07 PM Laurent <[email protected]> wrote:
> and yet:
>
> > (for-each
> (λ (x) (printf "~a: ~a\n" (~v x #:min-width 28) (struct->vector x)))
> `(hello "hello" 43110 #f #(h e l l o) #"hello" (h e l l o)
> ,(new frame% [label ""])))
>
> hello : #(struct:symbol ...)
> "hello" : #(struct:string ...)
> 43110 : #(struct:fixnum-integer ...)
> #f : #(struct:false ...)
> #(h e l l o) : #(struct:vector ...)
> #"hello" : #(struct:byte-string ...)
> (h e l l o) : #(struct:pair ...)
> #(struct:object:frame% ...) : #(struct:object:frame% ...)
>
> ;)
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:20 PM Alexis King <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In general, the answer is “no,” mostly because it’s not clear in Racket
>> what “the type of a value” means. It’s difficult to come up with a
>> definition that would be useful enough to satisfy your criterion of not
>> “having to guess it first.” Consider: suppose you had a hypothetical
>> `type-of` operation that returned a value’s type:
>>
>> (type-of 'hello) ; => 'symbol
>> (type-of "hello") ; => 'string
>>
>> Now suppose you apply type-of to a value you know nothing about and get
>> back 'widget. Well, you don’t know what a widget is, so that didn’t
>> actually get you any further from where you started: you still don’t know
>> what to do with the value.
>>
>> Furthermore, types are not actually disjoint. You can write a struct
>> definition with properties like prop:procedure and prop:evt, and if a
>> struct has both, should type-of return the struct’s name, 'procedure, or
>> 'evt? It’s not really clear. You might be able to come up with some more
>> sophisticated system with (potentially multiple) inheritance that could
>> capture these relationships, but I can say with confidence that no such
>> system currently exists in Racket.
>>
>> Alexis
>>
>> > On Aug 3, 2020, at 09:19, Hendrik Boom <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > In plain, untyped Racket:
>> >
>> > It is possible to ask if a value is a symbol with symbol?
>> > It is possible to ask if a value is a string with string?
>> > etc.
>> >
>> > Is there a way to ask the type of a value without having to guess it
>> first?
>> >
>> > -- hendrik
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Racket Users" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/C561F2A9-0C78-4EDA-A401-4FB067D79849%40gmail.com
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CABNTSaGUiZWoU9mZbqMjB04FSu_kFOGrgyv0riU8TuKtffB_dg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CABNTSaGUiZWoU9mZbqMjB04FSu_kFOGrgyv0riU8TuKtffB_dg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CANy33qnV3CNH3eGpVZ59qx%2BZQfjmaJ%3D9gSBfk_TY6aSx5F4k1w%40mail.gmail.com.
