[racket] typed racket: inconsistent interaction between typed and untyped code?

From: Danny Yoo (dyoo at cs.wpi.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 4 19:00:33 EST 2011

> Sadly, off the top of my head, I don't have a quick workaround for
> you.  Maybe Sam will have a better suggestion.

I'm still confused, because I'm in untyped code, which I had assumed
would maintain types at runtime through the use of contracts.  My
question is: why doesn't the use of toplevel-vals from untyped code
observe the value:

    #<Typed Value: #(struct:toplevel #(foobar))>

at runtime and be satisfied that this really is a toplevel structure?
That is, I don't mind so much that the value is wrapped, just so long
as the structure selector deals with the wrapping.

Posted on the users mailing list.